↓ Skip to main content

Calcium intake: good for the bones but bad for the heart? An analysis of clinical studies

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Endocrinology and Metabolism, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#47 of 179)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Calcium intake: good for the bones but bad for the heart? An analysis of clinical studies
Published in
Archives of Endocrinology and Metabolism, June 2016
DOI 10.1590/2359-3997000000173
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guilherme Alcantara Cunha Lima, Priscilla Damião Araújo Lima, Maria da Glória Costa Reis Monteiro de Barros, Lívia Paiva Vardiero, Elisa Fernandes de Melo, Francisco de Paula Paranhos-Neto, Miguel Madeira, Maria Lucia Fleiuss de Farias

Abstract

The proper dietary calcium intake and calcium supplementation, when indicated, are important factors in the acquisition of peak bone mass during youth and in the prevention of fractures in old age. In addition to its deposition in bone, calcium confers an increase in its resistance and exhibits important activities in different enzymatic pathways in the body (e.g., neural, hormonal, muscle-related and blood clotting pathways). Thus, calcium supplementation can directly or indirectly affect important functions in the body, such as the control of blood pressure, plasma glucose, body weight, lipid profile and endothelial function. Since one publication reported increased cardiovascular risk due to calcium supplementation, many researchers have studied whether this risk actually exists; the results are conflicting, and the involved mechanisms are uncertain. However, studies that have evaluated the influence of the consumption of foods rich in calcium have reported no increase in the cardiovascular risk, which suggests that nutritional intake should be prioritized as a method for supplementation and that the use of calcium supplements should be reserved for patients who truly need supplementation and are unable to achieve the recommended daily nutritional intake of calcium.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 35%
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 12 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 May 2021.
All research outputs
#10,727,958
of 18,707,006 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Endocrinology and Metabolism
#47
of 179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,124
of 273,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Endocrinology and Metabolism
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,707,006 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 179 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 273,332 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.