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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Offering statins to a population attending health checks with a 10‐year cardiovascular disease risk between 10% and 20%
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International journal of clinical practice, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1111/ijcp.12742 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J A Usher-Smith, J Pritchard, S Poole, S J Griffin |
| Abstract |
In 2014 the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended reducing the threshold for offering statin therapy to patients from a 10-year modelled risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) of 20% to 10%. To describe the response of patients in UK primary care with a CVD risk between 10% and 20% to an invitation to attend a consultation to discuss statins. Review of electronic medical records at one GP practice in the East of England. We invited all patients who had attended an NHS Health Check at the practice, had a QRisk(®) score between 10% and 20%, and were not prescribed statins to attend designated clinics in the practice to discuss starting statins. We reviewed the medical records to identify those who had attended the clinics and those who had chosen to start a statin. Of 410 patients invited, 100 (24.4%) patients attended the designated clinics and 45 (11%) chose to start a statin. Those who chose to start a statin were older and with a higher QRisk(®) than those who did not. Among those who attended, individuals who started a statin had a higher QRisk(®) than those who did not and were more likely to be current or ex-smokers. The proportion choosing to start a statin was substantially lower than previously estimated. Large population-based studies with long-term follow-up are needed to assess the impact on health and workload of this change in guidance. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 42% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 34% |
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 06 November 2015.
All research outputs
#4,845,904
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from International journal of clinical practice
#493
of 2,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,637
of 286,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International journal of clinical practice
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 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 2,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 286,401 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 14 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 50% of its contemporaries.