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 |
Is Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in Canadian Family Practices Cost-Effective in Patients 65 Years and Older?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Journal of Cardiology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.cjca.2018.05.016 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean-Eric Tarride, F. Russell Quinn, Gord Blackhouse, Roopinder K. Sandhu, Natasha Burke, David J. Gladstone, Noah M. Ivers, Lisa Dolovich, Andrea Thornton, Juliet Nakamya, Chinthanie Ramasundarahettige, Paul A. Frydrych, Sam Henein, Ken Ng, Valerie Congdon, Richard V. Birtwhistle, Richard Ward, Jeffrey S. Healey |
| Abstract |
We present an economic evaluation of a recently completed cohort study in which 2054 seniors were screened for atrial fibrillation (AF) in 22 Canadian family practices. Using a Markov model, trial and literature data were used to project long-term outcomes and costs associated with 4 AF screening strategies for individuals aged 65 years or older: no screening, screen with 30-second radial manual pulse check (pulse check), screen with a blood pressure machine with AF detection (BP-AF), and screen with a single-lead electrocardiogram (SL-ECG). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% and the model used a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. Compared with no screening, screening for AF in Canadian family practice offices using pulse check or screen with a blood pressure machine with AF detection is the dominant strategy whereas screening with SL-ECG is a highly cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of CAD$4788. When different screening strategies were compared, screening with pulse check had the lowest expected costs ($202) and screening with SL-ECG had the highest expected costs ($222). The no-screening arm resulted in the lowest number of QALYs (8.74195) whereas pulse check and SL-ECG resulted in the highest expected QALYs (8.74362). Probabilistic analysis confirmed that pulse check had the highest probability of being cost-effective (63%) assuming a willingness to pay of $50,000 per QALY gained. Screening for AF in seniors during routine appointments with Canadian family physicians is a cost-effective strategy compared with no screening. Screening with a pulse check is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 17% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 21% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 31% |
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 27 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Cardiology
#2,192
of 2,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,759
of 341,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Cardiology
#54
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 341,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.