↓ Skip to main content

Metabolic syndrome: definitions and controversies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2011
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 (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1061 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1556 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Metabolic syndrome: definitions and controversies
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2011
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-9-48
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Kassi, Panagiota Pervanidou, Gregory Kaltsas, George Chrousos

Abstract

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a complex disorder defined by a cluster of interconnected factors that increase the risk of cardiovascular atherosclerotic diseases and diabetes mellitus type 2. Currently, several different definitions of MetS exist, causing substantial confusion as to whether they identify the same individuals or represent a surrogate of risk factors. Recently, a number of other factors besides those traditionally used to define MetS that are also linked to the syndrome have been identified. In this review, we critically consider existing definitions and evolving information, and conclude that there is still a need to develop uniform criteria to define MetS, so as to enable comparisons between different studies and to better identify patients at risk. As the application of the MetS model has not been fully validated in children and adolescents as yet, and because of its alarmingly increasing prevalence in this population, we suggest that diagnosis, prevention and treatment in this age group should better focus on established risk factors rather than the diagnosis of MetS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 1,556 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 6 <1%
United States 5 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Mexico 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Other 10 <1%
Unknown 1519 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 240 15%
Student > Master 221 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 180 12%
Researcher 117 8%
Student > Postgraduate 117 8%
Other 283 18%
Unknown 398 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 486 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 141 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 135 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 104 7%
Sports and Recreations 42 3%
Other 193 12%
Unknown 455 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,755,051
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,286
of 3,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,859
of 111,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#26
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 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 3,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 111,636 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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.