↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Tumor necrosis factor-alpha G-238A polymorphism and coronary artery disease risk: a meta-analysis of 4,222 patients and 4,832 controls

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Tumor necrosis factor-alpha G-238A polymorphism and coronary artery disease risk: a meta-analysis of 4,222 patients and 4,832 controls
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s87598
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wan-Lin Wei, Xiao-Dong Zhang, Joey Kwong, Xian-Tao Zeng, Zhen-Jian Zhang, Xian-Ping Hua

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) gene G-238A polymorphism and risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) using a meta-analytical approach. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant publications up to January 13, 2015. Four authors (XPH, XDZ, XTZ, and ZJZ) independently selected the studies, extracted, and analyzed the data using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. The sensitivity and subgroups analyses were also performed. Either a fixed effects or a random effects model was used to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Finally, ten articles including eleven case-control studies involving 4,222 patients and 4,832 controls were yielded. The results indicated no significant association between G-238A polymorphism and CAD risk (A vs G: OR =1.08, 95% CI =0.89-1.30; AA vs GG: OR =1.15, 95% CI =0.59-2.25; GA vs GG: OR =1.14, 95% CI =0.88-1.48; AA vs [GG + GA]: OR =1.09, 95% CI =0.56-2.14; (GA + AA) vs GG: OR =1.11, 95% CI =0.90-1.38). In the subgroup analyses, similar results were obtained with overall populations. The sensitivity analyses showed that the overall results were robust. No publication bias was detected. Based on current evidence, we can conclude that TNF-α G-238A polymorphism might not be associated with CAD risk.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 25%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Lecturer 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Psychology 1 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,825,907
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#755
of 1,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,515
of 266,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#46
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 266,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.