↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

What is this page? Embed badge

Lipid-lowering agents for nephrotic syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Summary Twitter Dimensions citations
Title
Lipid-lowering agents for nephrotic syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005425.pub2
Pubmed ID
24327265
Authors

Xiangyu Kong, Hao Yuan, Junming Fan, Zi Li, Taixiang Wu, Lanhui Jiang

Abstract

Nephrotic syndrome is the collective name given to a group of symptoms that include proteinuria, lipiduria, hypoalbuminaemia, oedema, hypercholesterolaemia, elevated triglycerides, and hyperlipidaemia. Hyperlipidaemia is thought to aggravate glomerulosclerosis (hardening of blood vessels in the kidneys) and enhance progression of glomerular disease. Studies have established that reduction in total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is associated with reduction in risk of cardiovascular diseases. In 2011, the European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemia recommended use of statins as first-line agents in the management of nephrotic dyslipidaemia. However, the effectiveness and safety of statins for people with nephrotic syndrome remains uncertain. Furthermore, the efficacy of second-line lipid-lowering drugs, such as ezetimibe and nicotinic acid, has not been proven in patients with nephrotic syndrome who are unable to tolerate statin therapy.

View on publisher site

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 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 190 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 33 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 13%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Master 20 10%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Other 35 18%
Unknown 42 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 48 25%

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 18 June 2015.
All research outputs
#5,618,426
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,490
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,260
of 306,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#142
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 306,776 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is hosted by Altmetric on behalf of Cochrane Library.