↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Article Metrics

Healthful and Unhealthful Plant-Based Diets and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in U.S. Adults

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 12,173)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
295 Mendeley
Title
Healthful and Unhealthful Plant-Based Diets and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in U.S. Adults
Published in
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), July 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.05.047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ambika Satija, Shilpa N. Bhupathiraju, Donna Spiegelman, Stephanie E. Chiuve, JoAnn E. Manson, Walter Willett, Kathryn M. Rexrode, Eric B. Rimm, Frank B. Hu

Abstract

Plant-based diets are recommended for coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention. However, not all plant foods are necessarily beneficial for health. This study sought to examine associations between plant-based diet indices and CHD incidence. We included 73,710 women in NHS (Nurses' Health Study) (1984 to 2012), 92,329 women in NHS2 (1991 to 2013), and 43,259 men in Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986 to 2012), free of chronic diseases at baseline. We created an overall plant-based diet index (PDI) from repeated semiquantitative food-frequency questionnaire data, by assigning positive scores to plant foods and reverse scores to animal foods. We also created a healthful plant-based diet index (hPDI) where healthy plant foods (whole grains, fruits/vegetables, nuts/legumes, oils, tea/coffee) received positive scores, whereas less-healthy plant foods (juices/sweetened beverages, refined grains, potatoes/fries, sweets) and animal foods received reverse scores. To create an unhealthful PDI (uPDI), we gave positive scores to less-healthy plant foods and reverse scores to animal and healthy plant foods. Over 4,833,042 person-years of follow-up, we documented 8,631 incident CHD cases. In pooled multivariable analysis, higher adherence to PDI was independently inversely associated with CHD (hazard ratio [HR] comparing extreme deciles: 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.01; p trend = 0.003). This inverse association was stronger for hDPI (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.83; p trend <0.001). Conversely, uPDI was positively associated with CHD (HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.46; p trend <0.001). Higher intake of a plant-based diet index rich in healthier plant foods is associated with substantially lower CHD risk, whereas a plant-based diet index that emphasizes less-healthy plant foods is associated with higher CHD risk.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 549 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 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 295 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 24%
Student > Bachelor 50 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Other 27 9%
Researcher 26 9%
Other 54 18%
Unknown 35 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 69 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 5%
Sports and Recreations 9 3%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 56 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1473. 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 14 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,866
of 14,158,881 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC)
#9
of 12,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89
of 214,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC)
#1
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,158,881 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 214,916 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 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 99% of its contemporaries.