↓ Skip to main content

Cost-Effectiveness Model of Use of Genetic Testing as an Aid in Assessing the Likely Benefit of Aspirin Therapy for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Therapeutics, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Cost-Effectiveness Model of Use of Genetic Testing as an Aid in Assessing the Likely Benefit of Aspirin Therapy for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease
Published in
Clinical Therapeutics, May 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.04.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dov Shiffman, Katherine Slawsky, Lauren Fusfeld, James J. Devlin, Thomas F. Goss

Abstract

Aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is controversial because of the need to balance the risk of major bleeding events caused by aspirin with the benefit of CVD events prevented by aspirin. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) proposed guidelines that use CVD risk thresholds, based on the Framingham Risk Score, to identify patients likely to benefit from aspirin use. Genetic information could be used to modify this CVD risk assessment; for example, 2 variants of the LPA gene, which encodes apolipoprotein(a), are associated with increased risk of CVD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 45 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 19%
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 11 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 June 2014.
All research outputs
#7,960,052
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Therapeutics
#1,106
of 3,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,705
of 176,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Therapeutics
#11
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 176,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.