| Title |
Update on the NCEP ATP-III emerging cardiometabolic risk factors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-12-115 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert H Eckel, Marc-Andre Cornier |
| Abstract |
The intent of this review is to update the science of emerging cardiometabolic risk factors that were listed in the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel-III (ATP-III) report of 2001 (updated in 2004). At the time these guidelines were published, the evidence was felt to be insufficient to recommend these risk factors for routine screening of cardiovascular disease risk. However, the panel felt that prudent use of these biomarkers for patients at intermediate risk of a major cardiovascular event over the subsequent 10 years might help identify patients who needed more aggressive low density lipoprotein (LDL) or non-high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol lowering therapy. While a number of other emerging risk factors have been identified, this review will be limited to assessing the data and recommendations for the use of apolipoprotein B, lipoprotein (a), homocysteine, pro-thrombotic factors, inflammatory factors, impaired glucose metabolism, and measures of subclinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease for further cardiovascular disease risk stratification. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 40% |
| France | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 154 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 9% |
| Researcher | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 30 | 19% |
| Unknown | 38 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 77 | 49% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Unknown | 44 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 12 November 2022.
All research outputs
#5,485,199
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,201
of 3,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,154
of 237,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#51
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 237,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.