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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Effectiveness of the Risk Factor Management Clinic in Atrial Fibrillation The CENT Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacep.2016.12.015 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rajeev K. Pathak, Michelle Evans, Melissa E. Middeldorp, Rajiv Mahajan, Abhinav B. Mehta, Megan Meredith, Darragh Twomey, Christopher X. Wong, Jeroen M.L. Hendriks, Walter P. Abhayaratna, Jonathan M. Kalman, Dennis H. Lau, Prashanthan Sanders |
| Abstract |
Atrial fibrillation (AF) imposes a substantial cost burden on the healthcare system. Weight and risk factor management (RFM) reduces AF burden and improves the outcomes of AF ablation. This study sought to evaluate the cost and clinical effectiveness of integrating RFM into the overall management of AF. Of 1,415 consecutive patients with symptomatic AF, 825 patients had body mass index ≥27 kg/m2. After screening for exclusion criteria, the final cohort comprised 355 patients: 208 patients who opted for RFM and 147 control subjects and were followed by 3 to 6 monthly clinic review, 7-day Holter monitoring, and AF Symptom Score. A decision analytical model calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of cost per unit of global well-being gained and unit of AF burden reduced. There were no differences in baseline characteristics or follow-up duration (p = NS). Arrhythmia-free survival was better in the RFM compared with control subjects (Kaplan-Meier: 79% vs. 44%; p < 0.001). At follow-up, RFM group had less unplanned specialist visits (0.19 ± 0.40 vs. 1.94 ± 2.00; p < 0.001), hospitalizations (0.74 ± 1.3 vs. 1.05 ± 1.60; p = 0.03), cardioversions (0.89 ± 1.50 vs. 1.51 ± 2.30; p = 0.002), emergency presentations (0.18 ± 0.50 vs. 0.76 ± 1.20; p < 0.001), and ablation procedures (0.60 ± 0.69 vs. 0.72 ± 0.86; p = 0.03). Antihypertensive (0.53 ± 0.70 vs. 0.78 ± 0.60; p = 0.04) and antiarrhythmic (0.26 ± 0.50 vs. 0.91 ± 0.60; p = 0.003) use declined in RFM. The RFM group had an increase of 0.1930 quality-adjusted life years and a cost saving of $12,094 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $62,653 saved per quality-adjusted life years gained). A structured physician-directed RFM program is clinically effective and cost saving. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 | 23 | 43% |
| Australia | 7 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 7% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Djibouti | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 35 | 65% |
| Scientists | 9 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 27% |
| Unknown | 19 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,210,926
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#234
of 1,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,990
of 323,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#4
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 323,203 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 92% 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 90% of its contemporaries.