↓ Skip to main content

Nut consumption for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Nut consumption for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011583.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole Martin, Roberta Germanò, Louise Hartley, Alma J Adler, Karen Rees

Abstract

Nuts contain a number of nutritional attributes which may be cardioprotective. A number of epidemiological studies have shown that nut consumption may have a beneficial effect on people who have cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. However, results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are less consistent. To determine the effectiveness of nut consumption for the primary prevention of CVD. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) and Health Economics Evaluations Database (HEED) up to 30 July 2015. We searched trial registers and reference lists of reviews for further studies. We did not apply any language restrictions. We included RCTs of dietary advice to increase nut consumption or provision of nuts to increase consumption lasting at least three months and including healthy adults or adults at moderate and high risk of CVD. The comparison group was no intervention or minimal intervention. The outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events and CVD risk factors. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We included five trials (435 participants randomised) and one ongoing trial. One study is awaiting classification. All trials examined the provision of nuts to increase consumption rather than dietary advice. None of the included trials reported on the primary outcomes, CVD clinical events, but trials were small and short term. All five trials reported on CVD risk factors. Four of these trials provided data in a useable format for meta-analyses, but heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis for most of the analyses. Overall trials were judged to be at unclear risk of bias.There were variable and inconsistent effects of nut consumption on CVD risk factors (lipid levels and blood pressure). Three trials monitored adverse events. One trial reported an allergic reaction to nuts and three trials reported no significant weight gain with increased nut consumption. None of the included trials reported on other secondary outcomes, occurrence of type 2 diabetes as a major risk factor for CVD, health-related quality of life and costs. Currently there is a lack of evidence for the effects of nut consumption on CVD clinical events in primary prevention and very limited evidence for the effects on CVD risk factors. No conclusions can be drawn and further high quality longer term and adequately powered trials are needed to answer the review question.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 109 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 24%
Student > Bachelor 20 18%
Researcher 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Other 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 16%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 18 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2019.
All research outputs
#641,123
of 14,189,288 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,942
of 10,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,933
of 249,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#69
of 264 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,189,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,880 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 264 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.