↓ Skip to main content

Differential effects of medium- and long-chain saturated fatty acids on blood lipid profile: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Differential effects of medium- and long-chain saturated fatty acids on blood lipid profile: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, September 2018
DOI 10.1093/ajcn/nqy167
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nisha Panth, Kylie A Abbott, Cintia B Dias, Katie Wynne, Manohar L Garg

Abstract

Medium-chain saturated fatty acids (MCFAs) may affect circulating lipids and lipoproteins differently than long-chain saturated fatty acids (LCSFAs), but the results from human intervention trials have been equivocal. The aim of this study was to determine whether MCFAs and LCSFAs have differential impacts on blood lipids and lipoproteins. Five databases were searched (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Scopus) until April 2018, and published clinical trials investigating the differential effects of dietary MCFAs and LCSFAs on blood lipids were included. Searches were limited to the English language and to studies with adults aged >18 y. Where possible, studies were pooled for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.2. The principle summary measure was the mean difference between groups calculated using the random-effects model. Eleven eligible crossover and 1 parallel trial were identified with a total of 299 participants [weighted mean ± SD age: 38 ± 3 y; weighted mean ± SD body mass index (kg/m2): 24 ± 2]. All studies were pooled for the meta-analysis. Diets enriched with MCFAs led to significantly higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentrations than diets enriched with LCSFAs (0.11 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.15 mmol/L) with no effect on triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and total cholesterol concentrations. Consumption of diets rich in MCFAs significantly increased apolipoprotein A-I (apoA-I) concentrations compared with diets rich in LCSFAs (0.08 g/L; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.14 g/L). There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity for HDL cholesterol, apoA-I, and triglyceride concentrations; however, significant heterogeneity was observed for the total cholesterol (I2 = 49%) and LDL cholesterol analysis (I2 = 58%). The findings of this research demonstrate a differential effect of MCFAs and LCSFAs on HDL cholesterol concentrations. Further investigations are warranted to elucidate the mechanism by which the lipid profile is altered. This trial was registered at www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO as CRD42017078277.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 4 25%
Researcher 4 25%
Unspecified 3 19%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Unspecified 4 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Other 2 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,229,785
of 12,840,843 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#3,644
of 9,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,638
of 265,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#45
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,840,843 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,311 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 265,422 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.