↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines recommendations about primary cardiovascular disease prevention for older adults

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
Title
Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines recommendations about primary cardiovascular disease prevention for older adults
Published in
BMC Primary Care, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12875-015-0310-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jesse Jansen, Shannon McKinn, Carissa Bonner, Les Irwig, Jenny Doust, Paul Glasziou, Brooke Nickel, Barbara van Munster, Kirsten McCaffery

Abstract

Clinical care for older adults is complex and represents a growing problem. They are a diverse patient group with varying needs, frequent presence of multiple comorbidities, and are more susceptible to treatment harms. Thus Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) need to carefully consider older adults in order to guide clinicians. We reviewed CPG recommendations for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and examined the extent to which CPGs address issues important for older people identified in the literature. We searched: 1) two systematic reviews on CPGs for CVD prevention and 2) the National CPG Clearinghouse, G-I-N International CPG Library and Trip databases for CPGs for CVD prevention, hypertension and cholesterol. We conducted our search between April and December 2013. We excluded CPGs for diabetes, chronic kidney disease, HIV, lifestyle, general screening/prevention, and pregnant or pediatric populations. Three authors independently screened citations for inclusion and extracted data. The primary outcomes were presence and extent of recommendations for older people including discussion of: (1) available evidence, (2) barriers to implementation of the CPG, and (3) tailoring management for this group. We found 47 eligible CPGs. There was no mention of older people in 4 (9 %) of the CPGs. Benefits were discussed more frequently than harms. Twenty-three CPGs (49 %) discussed evidence about potential benefits and 18 (38 %) discussed potential harms of CVD prevention in older people. Most CPGs addressed one or more barriers to implementation, often as a short statement. Although 27 CPGs (58 %) mentioned tailoring management to the older patient context (e.g. comorbidities), concrete guidance was rare. Although most CVD prevention CPGs mention the older population to some extent, the information provided is vague and very limited. Older adults represent a growing proportion of the population. Guideline developers must ensure they consider older patients' needs and provide appropriate advice to clinicians in order to support high quality care for this group. CPGs should at a minimum address the available evidence about CVD prevention for older people, and acknowledge the importance of patient involvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 116 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 15%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 30 25%
Unknown 26 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Psychology 6 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 41 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 October 2015.
All research outputs
#5,196,160
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#717
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,667
of 277,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#14
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. 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 277,483 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 67% of its contemporaries.