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 |
Validation of presentation and 3 h high-sensitivity troponin to rule-in and rule-out acute myocardial infarction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Heart, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308505 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John W Pickering, Jaimi H Greenslade, Louise Cullen, Dylan Flaws, William Parsonage, Peter George, Andrew Worster, Peter A Kavsak, Martin P Than |
| Abstract |
International guidelines to rule-in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department (ED) recommend an algorithm using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) sampling on presentation and 3 h following presentation. We tested the diagnostic accuracy of this algorithm by pooling data from five distinct cohorts from three countries of prospectively recruited patients with independently adjudicated outcomes. We measured high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) on presentation (0 h) and 3 h post-presentation samples in adult patients attending an ED with possible AMI to validate the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Acute Cardiac Care rule-in algorithm (ESC-rule-in). Specifically, (i) in patients with a 0 h hs-cTn concentration ≤99th percentile and a 3 h hs-cTn >99th percentile, positive patients are those with an absolute change in troponin ≥50% of the 99th percentile, and (ii) in patients with a 0 and 3 h hs-cTn >99th percentile, positive patients are those with a relative change in troponin of ≥20%. We concurrently assessed the efficacy of the 0 and 3 h hs-cTn <99th percentile to rule-out AMI. 1061 patients with hs-cTnI and 985 with hs-cTnT were included. The ESC-rule-in positive predictive value (PPV) was 83.5% (95% CI 74.9% to 90.1%) for hs-cTnI and 72.0% (95% CI 62.1% to 80.5%) for hs-cTnT. Forty-six AMIs (34.9%) were not ruled in using hs-cTnI and 62 (46.2%) using hs-cTnT. The sensitivity of the 99th percentile to rule-out AMI was 93.2% (95% CI 87.5% to 96.8%) for hs-cTnI and 94.8% (95% CI 89.5% to 97.9%) for hs-cTnT. The ESC-rule-in algorithm has good PPV with hs-cTnI and reasonable with hs-cTnT and can rule-in over 50% of AMIs. However, the sensitivity of the 99th percentile to rule-out AMI is too low for clinical use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 14 | 34% |
| United States | 3 | 7% |
| Spain | 3 | 7% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 5% |
| Egypt | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 46% |
| Scientists | 12 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 23 | 25% |
| Unknown | 18 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 53% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 26 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,431,967
of 25,773,273 outputs
Outputs from Heart
#804
of 6,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,342
of 314,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart
#17
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,773,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 314,820 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.