↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

A Clinician’s Guide for Trending Cardiovascular Nutrition Controversies Part II

Overview of attention for article published in JACC, July 2018
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 (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
82 news outlets
twitter
363 X users
facebook
19 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
Title
A Clinician’s Guide for Trending Cardiovascular Nutrition Controversies Part II
Published in
JACC, July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.05.030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew M. Freeman, Pamela B. Morris, Karen Aspry, Neil F. Gordon, Neal D. Barnard, Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Emilio Ros, Stephen Devries, James O’Keefe, Michael Miller, Dean Ornish, Kim A. Williams, Travis Batts, Robert J. Ostfeld, Sheldon Litwin, Monica Aggarwal, Andrea Werner, Kathleen Allen, Beth White, Penny Kris-Etherton

Abstract

The potential cardiovascular (CV) benefits of many trending foods and dietary patterns are still incompletely understood, and scientific inquiry continues to evolve. In the meantime, however, a number of controversial dietary patterns, foods, and nutrients have received significant media attention and are mired by "hype." This second review addresses some of the more recent popular foods and dietary patterns that are recommended for CV health to provide clinicians with current information for patient discussions in the clinical setting. Specifically, this paper delves into dairy products, added sugars, legumes, coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages, energy drinks, mushrooms, fermented foods, seaweed, plant and marine-derived omega-3-fatty acids, and vitamin B12.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 363 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 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 192 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Master 15 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Other 13 7%
Other 43 22%
Unknown 66 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 78 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 865. 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 August 2023.
All research outputs
#20,807
of 25,556,408 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#52
of 16,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#407
of 342,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#2
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,556,408 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 16,760 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.2. 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 342,010 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 184 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 98% of its contemporaries.