↓ Skip to main content

The "smoker's paradox" in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
9 tweeters
1 Google+ user


95 Dimensions

Readers on

69 Mendeley
The "smoker's paradox" in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medicine, August 2011
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-9-97
Pubmed ID

Erlend Aune, Jo Røislien, Mariann Mathisen, Dag S Thelle, Jan Erik Otterstad


Smokers have been shown to have lower mortality after acute coronary syndrome than non-smokers. This has been attributed to the younger age, lower co-morbidity, more aggressive treatment and lower risk profile of the smoker. Some studies, however, have used multivariate analyses to show a residual survival benefit for smokers; that is, the "smoker's paradox". The aim of this study was, therefore, to perform a systematic review of the literature and evidence surrounding the existence of the "smoker's paradox".

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 %
Other 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 18 26%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 13 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 25 November 2017.
All research outputs
of 15,334,773 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
of 2,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 97,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,334,773 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,385 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 97,207 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them