| Title |
Green and black tea for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009934.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Louise Hartley, Nadine Flowers, Jennifer Holmes, Aileen Clarke, Saverio Stranges, Lee Hooper, Karen Rees |
| Abstract |
There is increasing evidence that both green and black tea are beneficial for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 16 | 27% |
| United States | 5 | 8% |
| Spain | 5 | 8% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Egypt | 1 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 26 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 49 | 82% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 12% |
| Scientists | 2 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 448 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 435 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 75 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 60 | 13% |
| Researcher | 43 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 24 | 5% |
| Other | 78 | 17% |
| Unknown | 129 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 135 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 5% |
| Psychology | 12 | 3% |
| Other | 53 | 12% |
| Unknown | 151 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 388. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#76,271
of 24,857,051 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#137
of 12,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#427
of 201,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 279 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,857,051 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 12,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 201,950 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 279 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.