↓ Skip to main content

Body habitus in heart failure: understanding the mechanisms and clinical significance of the obesity paradox

Overview of attention for article published in Future Cardiology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Body habitus in heart failure: understanding the mechanisms and clinical significance of the obesity paradox
Published in
Future Cardiology, October 2016
DOI 10.2217/fca-2016-0029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Parham Parto, Carl J Lavie, Ross Arena, Samantha Bond, Dejana Popovic, Hector O Ventura

Abstract

The prevalence of obesity among adults and children worldwide has reached epic proportions and has become a major independent risk factor for the development of heart failure (HF), in addition to a contributor of hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The implications of obesity in the development of HF involve adverse effects on cardiac structure and function. Despite all of this, in the setting of chronic HF, excess body mass is associated with improved clinical outcomes, demonstrating the presence of an obesity paradox. In this review, we will discuss the gender differences, global application, potential mechanisms and role of interventions based on fitness and purposeful weight loss as potential therapeutic strategies.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 19%
Student > Master 10 17%
Researcher 6 10%
Lecturer 3 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 21 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 26 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,287,959
of 25,393,528 outputs
Outputs from Future Cardiology
#196
of 623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,854
of 323,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Future Cardiology
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,528 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 623 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 323,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.