↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Impact of cardiovascular risk factors on carotid intima–media thickness: sex differences

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Impact of cardiovascular risk factors on carotid intima–media thickness: sex differences
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/cia.s103521
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Łoboz-Rudnicka, Joanna Jaroch, Zbigniew Bociąga, Barbara Rzyczkowska, Izabella Uchmanowicz, Jacek Polański, Krzysztof Dudek, Andrzej Szuba, Krystyna Łoboz-Grudzień

Abstract

There has been growing interest in the sex-related differences in the impact of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors on carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT). Therefore, we aimed at examining the influence of CV risk factors on CIMT in men and women and identifying differences between males and females in the risk profiles affecting CIMT. The study group consisted of 256 patients (mean age 54.7 years), including 134 females (52%), with the following CV risk factors: arterial hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, nicotine addiction, overweight, and obesity. Subjects with the history of any overt CV disease were excluded. CIMT was measured through B-mode ultrasound examination of the right common carotid artery. In the analysis of CIMT values at different ages, the patients were divided into three age groups: 1) <45 years, 2) 45-60 years, and 3) >60 years. Regression analysis was used to examine the influence of CV risk factors on CIMT in men and women. CIMT increased with age in both men and women. Women had lower values of CIMT than men (0.54 mm vs 0.60 mm, P=0.011). The analysis in three age subgroups revealed that CIMT values were comparable in men and women in group 1 (0.48 mm vs 0.48 mm, P=0.861), but over the age of 45 years, CIMT values became significantly lower in women compared to men (group 2: 0.51 mm vs 0.63 mm, P=0.005; group 3: 0.63 mm vs 0.72 mm, P=0.020). Significant differences were observed between the sexes in terms of risk factor impact on CIMT. In men, only three factors significantly affected CIMT: age (b=+0.009, P<0.0001), hypertension (b=+0.067, P<0.05), and type 2 diabetes (b=+0.073, P<0.05). In women, apart from age (b=+0.008, P<0.0001) and type 2 diabetes (b=+0.111, P<0.01), significant factors were pulse pressure (PP; b=+0.005, P<0.0001), body mass index (b=+0.007, P<0.05), increased waist circumference (b=+0.092, P<0.01), and metabolic syndrome (b=+0.071, P<0.05). In the multiple regression analysis, independent CIMT determinants for the entire group were age (β=0.497, P<0.001) and body mass index (β=0.195, P=0.006). For males, age was the only independent determinant of CIMT (β=0.669, P<0.001). For females, these were PP (β=0.317, P=0.014), age (β=0.242, P=0.03), and increased waist circumference (β=0.207, P=0.048). CIMT values are lower in women than in men, which is most pronounced over the age of 45 years. There are sex-related differences in the profile of CV risk factors affecting CIMT: in males, CIMT is mostly determined by age, while in females, by age, PP, and increased waist circumference.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 27 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 30 49%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,051
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,619
of 311,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#27
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 311,864 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.