↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Impact of Cardiovascular Risk on the Relative Benefit and Harm of Intensive Treatment of Hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in JACC, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
57 news outlets
twitter
100 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Impact of Cardiovascular Risk on the Relative Benefit and Harm of Intensive Treatment of Hypertension
Published in
JACC, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.01.074
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert A Phillips, Jiaqiong Xu, Leif E Peterson, Ryan M Arnold, Joseph A Diamond, Adam E Schussheim

Abstract

The lower rate of primary outcome events in the intensive treatment group in SPRINT (Systolic Pressure Intervention Trial) was associated with increased clinically significant serious adverse events (SAEs). In 2017, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association issued risk-based blood pressure treatment guidelines. The authors hypothesized that stratification of the SPRINT population by degree of future cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk might identify a group which could benefit the most from intensive treatment. This study investigated the effect of baseline 10-year CVD risk on primary outcome events and all-cause SAEs in SPRINT. Stratifying by quartiles of baseline 10-year CVD risk, Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the associations of treatment group with the primary outcome events and SAEs. Using multiplicative Poisson regression, a predictive model was developed to determine the benefit-to-harm ratio as a function of CVD risk. Within each quartile, there was a lower rate of primary outcome events in the intensive treatment group, with no differences in all-cause SAEs. From the first to fourth quartiles, the number needed to treat to prevent primary outcomes decreased from 91 to 38. The number needed to harm for all-cause SAEs increased from 62 to 250. The predictive model demonstrated significantly increasing benefit-to-harm ratios (± SE) of 0.50 ± 0.15, 0.78 ± 0.26, 2.13 ± 0.73, and 4.80 ± 1.86, for the first, second, third, and fourth quartile, respectively (p for trend <0.001). All possible pairwise comparisons of between-quartile mean values of benefit-to-harm ratios were significantly different (p < 0.001). In SPRINT, those with lower baseline CVD risk had more harm than benefit from intensive treatment, whereas those with higher risk had more benefit. With 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood pressure treatment guidelines, this analysis may help providers and patients make decisions regarding the intensity of blood pressure treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Professor 10 12%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 24 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 35 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 502. 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 28 July 2019.
All research outputs
#51,941
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#131
of 16,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,263
of 348,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#3
of 413 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 348,505 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 413 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 99% of its contemporaries.