↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of 4 Cardiac Risk Calculators in Predicting Postoperative Cardiac Complications After Noncardiac Operations

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Cardiology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Comparison of 4 Cardiac Risk Calculators in Predicting Postoperative Cardiac Complications After Noncardiac Operations
Published in
American Journal of Cardiology, October 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.09.031
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Perioperative Guidelines suggest using the Revised Cardiac Risk Index, myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest, or American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program calculators for combined patient-surgical risk assessment. There are no published data comparing their performance. This study compared these risk calculators and a reconstructed Revised Cardiac Risk Index in predicting postoperative cardiac complications, both during hospitalization and 30 days after operation, in a patient cohort who underwent select surgical procedures in various risk categories. Cardiac complications occurred in 14 of 663 patients (2.1%), of which 11 occurred during hospitalization. Only 3 of 663 patients (0.45%) had a myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest. Because these calculators used different risk factors, different outcomes, and different durations of observation, a true direct comparison is not possible. We found that all 4 risk calculators performed well in the setting they were originally studied but were less accurate when applied in a different manner. In conclusion, all calculators were useful in defining low-risk patients in whom further cardiac testing was unnecessary, and the myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest may be the most reliable in selecting higher risk patients.

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 9 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 62 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 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 11%
Professor 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 16 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 January 2023.
All research outputs
#9,469,878
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiology
#6,343
of 15,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,437
of 365,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiology
#39
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 365,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 61% of its contemporaries.