↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Fibrates for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 Mendeley
Title
Fibrates for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009580.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deren Wang, Bian Liu, Wendan Tao, Zilong Hao, Ming Liu

Abstract

Fibrates are a class of drugs characterised by mainly lowering high triglyceride, raising high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and lowering the small dense fraction of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Their efficacy for secondary prevention of serious vascular events is unclear, and to date no systematic review focusing on secondary prevention has been undertaken. To assess the efficacy and safety of fibrates for the prevention of serious vascular events in people with previous cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary heart disease and stroke. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9, 2014) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to October week 1 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to 2014 week 41), the China Biological Medicine Database (CBM) (1978 to 2014), the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to 2014), Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (VIP) (1989 to 2014). We also searched other resources, such as ongoing trials registers and databases of conference abstracts, to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which a fibrate (for example gemfibrozil, fenofibrate) was compared with placebo or no treatment. We excluded RCTs with only laboratory outcomes. We also excluded trials comparing two different fibrates without a placebo or no-treatment control. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. We contacted authors of trials for missing data. We included 13 trials involving a total of 16,112 participants. Eleven trials recruited participants with history of coronary heart disease, two trials recruited participants with history of stroke, and one trial recruited participants with a mix of people with CVD. We judged overall risk of bias to be moderate. The meta-analysis (including all fibrate trials) showed evidence for a protective effect of fibrates primarily compared to placebo for the primary composite outcome of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and vascular death (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 0.94; participants = 16,064; studies = 12; I(2) = 45%, fixed effect). Fibrates were moderately effective for preventing MI occurrence (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.93; participants = 13,942; studies = 10; I(2) = 24%, fixed effect). Fibrates were not effective against all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; participants = 13,653; studies = 10; I(2) = 23%), death from vascular causes (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; participants = 13,653; studies = 10; I(2) = 11%, fixed effect), and stroke events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 11,719; studies = 6; I(2) = 11%, fixed effect). Excluding clofibrate trials, as the use of clofibrate was discontinued in 2012 due to safety concerns, the remaining class of fibrates were no longer effective in preventing the primary composite outcome (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; participants = 10,320; studies = 7; I(2) = 50%, random effects). However, without clofibrate data, fibrates remained effective in preventing MI (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94; participants = 8304; studies = 6; I(2) = 47%, fixed effect). There was no increase in adverse events with fibrates compared to control. Subgroup analyses showed the benefit of fibrates on the primary composite outcome to be consistent irrespective of age, gender, and diabetes mellitus. Moderate evidence showed that the fibrate class can be effective in the secondary prevention of composite outcome of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal MI, and vascular death. However, this beneficial effect relies on the inclusion of clofibrate data, a drug that was discontinued in 2002 due to its unacceptably large adverse effects. Further trials of the use of fibrates in populations with previous stroke and also against a background treatment with statins (standard of care) are required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 285 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 16%
Student > Bachelor 41 14%
Researcher 25 9%
Other 19 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 92 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 4%
Psychology 6 2%
Other 32 11%
Unknown 105 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 30 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,669,639
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,575
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,959
of 295,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 295,052 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.