| Title |
Individualised benefit–harm balance of aspirin as primary prevention measure – a good proof-of-concept, but could have been better…
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-016-0648-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mangesh A. Thorat |
| Abstract |
Guidelines from different organisations regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention vary despite being based on similar evidence. Translating these in practice presents a further major challenge. The benefit-harm balance tool developed by Puhan et al. (BMC Med 13:250, 2015) for aspirin can overcome some of these difficulties and is therefore an important step towards personalised medicine. Although a good proof-of-concept, this tool has some important limitations that presently preclude its use in practice or for further research. One of the major benefits of aspirin that has become apparent in the last decade or so is its effect in preventing cancer and cancer-related deaths. However, this benefit is clear and consistent in randomised as well as observational evidence only for specific cancers. Additionally, it has long lag-time and carry-over periods. These nuances of aspirin's effects demand a specific and a more sophisticated model such as a time-varying model. Further refinement of this tool with respect to these aspects is merited to make it ready for evaluation in qualitative and quantitative studies with the goal of clinical utility.Please see related article: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0493-2. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 24% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 41% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
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 08 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,335,423
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,335
of 3,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,761
of 355,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#42
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 355,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.