↓ Skip to main content

A clinical decision support tool for improving adherence to guidelines on anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke: A cluster-randomized trial in a Swedish primary…

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS Medicine, 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
39 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 Mendeley
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
A clinical decision support tool for improving adherence to guidelines on anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke: A cluster-randomized trial in a Swedish primary care setting (the CDS-AF study)
Published in
PLOS Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002528
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars O. Karlsson, Staffan Nilsson, Magnus Bång, Lennart Nilsson, Emmanouil Charitakis, Magnus Janzon

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with substantial morbidity, in particular stroke. Despite good evidence for the reduction of stroke risk with anticoagulant therapy, there remains significant undertreatment. The main aim of the current study was to investigate whether a clinical decision support tool (CDS) for stroke prevention integrated in the electronic health record could improve adherence to guidelines for stroke prevention in patients with AF. We conducted a cluster-randomized trial where all 43 primary care clinics in the county of Östergötland, Sweden (population 444,347), were randomized to be part of the CDS intervention or to serve as controls. The CDS produced an alert for physicians responsible for patients with AF and at increased risk for thromboembolism (according to the CHA2DS2-VASc algorithm) without anticoagulant therapy. The primary endpoint was adherence to guidelines after 1 year. After randomization, there were 22 and 21 primary care clinics in the CDS and control groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in baseline adherence to guidelines regarding anticoagulant therapy between the 2 groups (CDS group 70.3% [5,186/7,370; 95% CI 62.9%-77.7%], control group 70.0% [4,187/6,009; 95% CI 60.4%-79.6%], p = 0.83). After 12 months, analysis with linear regression with adjustment for primary care clinic size and adherence to guidelines at baseline revealed a significant increase in guideline adherence in the CDS (73.0%, 95% CI 64.6%-81.4%) versus the control group (71.2%, 95% CI 60.8%-81.6%, p = 0.013, with a treatment effect estimate of 0.016 [95% CI 0.003-0.028]; number of patients with AF included in the final analysis 8,292 and 6,508 in the CDS and control group, respectively). Over the study period, there was no difference in the incidence of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic thromboembolism in the CDS group versus the control group (49 [95% CI 43-55] per 1,000 patients with AF in the CDS group compared to 47 [95% CI 39-55] per 1,000 patients with AF in the control group, p = 0.64). Regarding safety, the CDS group had a lower incidence of significant bleeding, with events in 12 (95% CI 9-15) per 1,000 patients with AF compared to 16 (95% CI 12-20) per 1,000 patients with AF in the control group (p = 0.04). Limitations of the study design include that the analysis was carried out in a catchment area with a high baseline adherence rate, and issues regarding reproducibility to other regions. The present study demonstrates that a CDS can increase guideline adherence for anticoagulant therapy in patients with AF. Even though the observed difference was small, this is the first randomized study to our knowledge indicating beneficial effects with a CDS in patients with AF. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02635685.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 194 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Master 14 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 72 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 3%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 74 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,073,223
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from PLOS Medicine
#1,599
of 5,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,283
of 351,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS Medicine
#39
of 67 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 5,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 77.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 351,846 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.