| Title |
The ‘lottery’ of cardiovascular risk estimation with Internet-based risk calculators
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-018-0925-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giuseppe Lippi, Fabian Sanchis-Gomar |
| Abstract |
The cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of disability and premature death around the world. The ongoing publication of systematic and critical literature reviews has contributed to generate a kaleidoscope of guidelines by different scientific organizations. We investigated the accordance among the most popular web-based CVD risk calculators on the Internet. We carried out a simple study, by estimating the risk of CVD using the most popular Internet-based calculators available on the Internet. A Google search was performed, using the keyword "cardiovascular risk calculator", to identify the first 10 websites providing free on-line CVD risk calculators. We arbitrarily selected the cardiovascular profile of two subjects of a typical Western family: a 55-year man at a likely intermediate cardiovascular risk and a 45-year woman at a probable low risk. The score calculated according to the two arbitrary CVD risk profiles, one of whom was supposed to be at intermediate risk and the other at lower risk, was extremely variable. More specifically, the 10-year CVD risk of the 55-year old man varied from 3% to over 25% (median value, 12.9%, interquartile range [IQR], 10.7-19.0%), whereas that of the 45-year women varied between 0% and 4% (median value, 1.2%; IQR, 0.4-2.2%), thus displaying a nearly 10-fold variation in both cases. We concluded from our analysis of 11 different Internet-based CVD risk calculators that the final 10-year risk score can be extremely different, especially for the 55-year old man at predictably intermediate risk. |
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% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 24% |
| Professor | 4 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,494,712
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#667
of 1,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,872
of 331,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#17
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,162 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 331,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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.