↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
37 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
podcasts
1 podcast

Readers on

mendeley
117 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.
Article details
Title
Outcomes in Women and Minorities Compared With White Men 1 Year After Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: Insights and Results From the PLATINUM Diversity and PROMUS Element Plus Post-Approval Study Pooled Analysis
Published in
JAMA Cardiology, December 2017
DOI 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.3802
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

There exist limited outcomes data for women and minorities after contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To examine 1-year outcomes in women and minorities vs white men after PCI with everolimus-eluting stents. The PLATINUM Diversity study was a single-arm study enrolling women and minorities. Patient-level pooling with the PROMUS Element Plus Post-Approval Study was prespecified. Data on social determinants of health and language were collected in the PLATINUM Diversity cohort, which included 1501 patients at 52 US sites. The PROMUS Element Plus Post-Approval study enrolled 2681 patients at 52 US sites with some site overlap and included an "all-comers" population. All patients were enrolled beginning in October 2014 and were followed for 12 months. Analyses began in August 2016. Patients received 1 or more everolimus-eluting stent implantation. The primary end point was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which included death/myocardial infarction (MI)/target vessel revascularization. Secondary ischemic end points were also evaluated. The pooled study consisted of 4182 patients: 1635 white men (39.1%), 1863 women (white and minority) (44.5%), and 1059 minority patients (women and men) (25.3%). Women and minorities had a higher prevalence of diabetes, prior stroke, hypertension, renal disease, and congestive heart failure than white men but lower rates of multivessel disease, prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery, prior MI, and smoking. Unadjusted 1-year MACE rates (white men, 7.6%; women, 8.6%; minorities, 9.6%) were similar between groups with no significant differences after risk adjustment. The adjusted risk of death/MI was higher among women (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4) and minorities (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8) compared with white men and the adjusted risk of MI was higher in minorities (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.8). These differences were driven primarily by nonstent-related MIs. Within the PLATINUM Diversity cohort, the independent predictors of MACE were cardiogenic shock, renal disease, history of peripheral vascular disease, multivessel disease, widowhood, and lack of private insurance. After contemporary everolimus-eluting stent implantation, women and minorities experience a similar risk of 1-year MACE but a higher adjusted risk of recurrent ischemic events primarily because of nonstent-related MIs. Both clinical and angiographic factors and social determinants of health, including widowhood and insurance status, contribute to 1-year MACE among women and minorities.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Student > Master 7 6%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 58 50%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 58 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 04 January 2020.
All research outputs
#722,815
of 29,516,076 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Cardiology
#658
of 2,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,031
of 459,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Cardiology
#18
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,516,076 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,478 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 90.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 459,974 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.