↓ Skip to main content

Pooled individual patient data from five countries were used to derive a clinical prediction rule for coronary artery disease in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Pooled individual patient data from five countries were used to derive a clinical prediction rule for coronary artery disease in primary care
Published in
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, October 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.09.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

International Working Group on Chest Pain in Primary Care, Marc Aerts, Girma Minalu, Stefan Bösner, Frank Buntinx, Bernard Burnand, Jörg Haasenritter, Lilli Herzig, J. André Knottnerus, Staffan Nilsson, Walter Renier, Carol Sox, Harold Sox, Norbert Donner-Banzhoff

Abstract

To construct a clinical prediction rule for coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with chest pain in primary care. Meta-Analysis using 3099 patients from 5 studies. To identify candidate predictors, we used random forest trees, multiple imputation of missing values and logistic regression within individual studies. To generate a prediction rule on the pooled data, we applied a regression model that took account of the differing standard data sets collected by the 5 studies. The most parsimonious rule included six equally weighted predictors: age>55 (males) or >65 (females)(+1); attending physician suspected a serious diagnosis(+1); history of CAD(+1); pain brought on by exertion(+1); pain feels like "pressure"(+1); pain reproducible by palpation(-1). CAD was considered absent if the prediction score is <2. The AUC was 0.84. We applied this rule to a study setting with a CAD prevalence of 13.2% using a prediction score cut-off of <2 (i.e., -1, 0, or +1). When the score was <2, the probability of CAD was 2.1%(95%CI:1.1-3.9%); when the score was ≥2, it was 43.0%(95% CI:35.8-50.4%). Clinical prediction rules are a key strategy for individualizing care. Large data sets based on electronic health records from diverse sites creates opportunities for improving their internal and external validity. Our patient-level meta-analysis from 5 primary care sites should improve external validity. Our strategy for addressing site-to-site systematic variation in missing data should improve internal validity. Using principles derived from decision theory, we also discuss the problem of setting the cut-off prediction score for taking action.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 18 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Computer Science 4 6%
Engineering 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 26 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 November 2021.
All research outputs
#2,485,391
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#932
of 4,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,595
of 322,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#3
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,782 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 322,969 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.