↓ Skip to main content

The Omega-3 Index: Clinical Utility for Therapeutic Intervention

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiology Reports, September 2010
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 (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
patent
4 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
The Omega-3 Index: Clinical Utility for Therapeutic Intervention
Published in
Current Cardiology Reports, September 2010
DOI 10.1007/s11886-010-0141-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

William S. Harris

Abstract

Red blood cell levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are a reflection of tissue levels and are determined by a complex interplay of metabolism and nutrition. Low levels of EPA+DHA in erythrocytes are associated with increased risk for sudden cardiac death. If levels of EPA+DHA in erythrocytes are determined using a strictly defined and standardized method, then the clinical significance of differing levels (previously defined in major research studies using this methodology) may be understood and applied in patient care. The Omega-3 Index, which is the EPA+DHA content of erythrocytes expressed as a percent of total identified fatty acids, was originally suggested as a marker of increased risk for death from coronary heart disease, but it can also be viewed as an actual risk factor, playing a pathophysiologic role in the disease. Optimal levels appear to be 8% or greater. At this stage of its development, the Omega-3 Index appears to fulfill many of the requirements for both a risk marker and a risk factor. Using the Omega-3 Index in the design of clinical studies might allow for a more efficient use of research resources.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 46 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 24%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Other 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 8 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,920,120
of 12,354,773 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#77
of 507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,983
of 259,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,354,773 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 507 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 259,785 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them