↓ Skip to main content

Dietary fibre for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
75 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Dietary fibre for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011472.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Hartley, Michael D May, Emma Loveman, Jill L Colquitt, Karen Rees

Abstract

The prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a key public health priority. A number of dietary factors have been associated with modifying CVD risk factors. One such factor is dietary fibre which may have a beneficial association with CVD risk factors. There is a need to review the current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area. The primary objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of dietary fibre for the primary prevention of CVD. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1947 to January 2015) and Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to January 2015) as well as two clinical trial registers in January 2015. We also checked reference lists of relevant articles. No language restrictions were applied. We selected RCTs that assessed the effects of dietary fibre compared with no intervention or a minimal intervention on CVD and related risk factors. Participants included adults who are at risk of CVD or those from the general population. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias; a third author checked any differences. A different author checked analyses. We included 23 RCTs (1513 participants randomised) examining the effect of dietary fibre. The risk of bias was unclear for most studies and studies had small sample sizes. Few studies had an intervention duration of longer than 12 weeks. There was a wide variety of fibre sources used, with little similarity between groups in the choice of intervention.None of the studies reported on mortality (total or cardiovascular) or cardiovascular events. Results on lipids suggest there is a significant beneficial effect of increased fibre on total cholesterol levels (17 trials (20 comparisons), 1067 participants randomised, mean difference -0.23 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.06), and LDL cholesterol levels (mean difference -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.06) but not on triglyceride levels (mean difference 0.00 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05), and there was a very small but statistically significant decrease rather than increase in HDL levels with increased fibre intake (mean difference -0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01). Fewer studies (10 trials, 661 participants randomised) reported blood pressure outcomes where there is a significant effect of increased fibre consumption on diastolic blood pressure (mean difference -1.77 mmHg, 95% CI -2.61 to -0.92) whilst there is a reduction in systolic blood pressure with fibre but this does not reach statistical significance (mean difference -1.92 mmHg, 95% CI -4.02 to 0.19). There did not appear to be any subgroup effects by the nature of the type of intervention (fibre supplements or provision of foods/advice to increase fibre consumption) or the type of fibre (soluble/insoluble) although the number of studies contributing to each subgroup were small. All analyses need to be viewed with caution given the risks of bias observed for total cholesterol and the statistical heterogeneity observed for systolic blood pressure. Adverse events, where reported, appeared to mostly reflect mild to moderate gastrointestinal side-effects and these were generally reported more in the fibre intervention groups than the control groups. Studies were short term and therefore did not report on our primary outcomes, CVD clinical events. The pooled analyses for CVD risk factors suggest reductions in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol with increased fibre intake, and reductions in diastolic blood pressure. There were no obvious effects of subgroup analyses by type of intervention or fibre type but the number of studies included in each of these analyses were small. Risk of bias was unclear in the majority of studies and high for some quality domains so results need to be interpreted cautiously. There is a need for longer term, well-conducted RCTs to determine the effects of fibre type (soluble versus insoluble) and administration (supplements versus foods) on CVD events and risk factors for the primary prevention of CVD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 75 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 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Burkina Faso 1 <1%
Unknown 178 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 46 25%
Student > Master 38 21%
Researcher 28 15%
Unspecified 26 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Other 38 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 18%
Unspecified 33 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 15%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 23 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 82. 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 13 September 2019.
All research outputs
#202,117
of 13,514,434 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#486
of 10,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,277
of 363,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#18
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,514,434 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 363,288 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.