↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

The CardioMetabolic Health Alliance Working Toward a New Care Model for the Metabolic Syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in JACC, 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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
219 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
329 Mendeley
Title
The CardioMetabolic Health Alliance Working Toward a New Care Model for the Metabolic Syndrome
Published in
JACC, September 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.06.1328
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurence S. Sperling, Jeffrey I. Mechanick, Ian J. Neeland, Cynthia J. Herrick, Jean-Pierre Després, Chiadi E. Ndumele, Krishnaswami Vijayaraghavan, Yehuda Handelsman, Gary A. Puckrein, Maria Rosario G. Araneta, Quie K. Blum, Karen K. Collins, Stephen Cook, Nikhil V. Dhurandhar, Dave L. Dixon, Brent M. Egan, Daphne P. Ferdinand, Lawrence M. Herman, Scott E. Hessen, Terry A. Jacobson, Russell R. Pate, Robert E. Ratner, Eliot A. Brinton, Alan D. Forker, Laura L. Ritzenthaler, Scott M. Grundy

Abstract

The Cardiometabolic Think Tank was convened on June 20, 2014, in Washington, DC, as a "call to action" activity focused on defining new patient care models and approaches to address contemporary issues of cardiometabolic risk and disease. Individual experts representing >20 professional organizations participated in this roundtable discussion. The Think Tank consensus was that the metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a complex pathophysiological state comprised of a cluster of clinically measured and typically unmeasured risk factors, is progressive in its course, and is associated with serious and extensive comorbidity, but tends to be clinically under-recognized. The ideal patient care model for MetS must accurately identify those at risk before MetS develops and must recognize subtypes and stages of MetS to more effectively direct prevention and therapies. This new MetS care model introduces both affirmed and emerging concepts that will require consensus development, validation, and optimization in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 329 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 327 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 12%
Researcher 29 9%
Student > Bachelor 28 9%
Other 18 5%
Other 87 26%
Unknown 82 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 7%
Sports and Recreations 14 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Other 49 15%
Unknown 101 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 245. 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 11 October 2023.
All research outputs
#152,411
of 25,460,914 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#336
of 16,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,740
of 276,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#6
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,460,914 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 16,734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 276,966 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 250 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 97% of its contemporaries.