| Title |
Hypnotics and mortality in an elderly general population: a 12-year prospective study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-11-212 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Isabelle Jaussent, Marie-Laure Ancelin, Claudine Berr, Karine Pérès, Jacqueline Scali, Alain Besset, Karen Ritchie, Yves Dauvilliers |
| Abstract |
Hypnotics are widely used by the elderly, and their impact on mortality remains controversial. The inconsistent findings could be due to methodological limitations, notably the lack of control for underlying sleep symptoms or illness associated with hypnotic use, for example, insomnia symptoms and excessive daytime sleepiness, depression and anxiety. Our objective was to examine the association between the use of hypnotics and mortality risk in a large cohort of community-dwelling elderly, taking into account a wide range of potential competing risks including sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle, and chronic disorders as well as underlying psychiatric disorders and sleep complaints. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 21% |
| Unknown | 24 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 9% |
| Psychology | 6 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 17 April 2015.
All research outputs
#2,012,197
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,346
of 3,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,106
of 203,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#35
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 203,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 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.