↓ Skip to main content

Using Classification and Regression Trees (CART) to Identify Prescribing Thresholds for Cardiovascular Disease

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Using Classification and Regression Trees (CART) to Identify Prescribing Thresholds for Cardiovascular Disease
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40273-015-0342-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Schilling, Duncan Mortimer, Kim Dalziel, Emma Heeley, John Chalmers, Philip Clarke

Abstract

Many guidelines for clinical decisions are hierarchical and nonlinear. Evaluating if these guidelines are used in practice requires methods that can identify such structures and thresholds. Classification and regression trees (CART) were used to analyse prescribing patterns of Australian general practitioners (GPs) for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Our aim was to identify if GPs use absolute risk (AR) guidelines in favour of individual risk factors to inform their prescribing decisions of lipid-lowering medications. We employed administrative prescribing information that is linked to patient-level data from a clinical assessment and patient survey (the AusHeart Study), and assessed prescribing of lipid-lowering medications over a 12-month period for patients (n = 1903) who were not using such medications prior to recruitment. CART models were developed to explain prescribing practice. Out-of-sample performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and optimised via pruning. We found that individual risk factors (low-density lipoprotein, diabetes, triglycerides and a history of CVD), GP-estimated rather than Framingham AR, and sociodemographic factors (household income, education) were the predominant drivers of GP prescribing. However, sociodemographic factors and some individual risk factors (triglycerides and CVD history) only become relevant for patients with a particular profile of other risk factors. The ROC area under the curve was 0.63 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.64). There is little evidence that AR guidelines recommended by the National Heart Foundation and National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance, or conditional individual risk eligibility guidelines from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, are adopted in prescribing practice. The hierarchy of conditional relationships between risk factors and socioeconomic factors identified by CART provides new insights into prescribing decisions. Overall, CART is a useful addition to the analyst's toolkit when investigating healthcare decisions.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 65 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 24%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 10%
Computer Science 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 19 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 24 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,822,521
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#250
of 1,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,838
of 386,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#8
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 386,426 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 73% of its contemporaries.