↓ Skip to main content

Primary care REFerral for EchocaRdiogram (REFER) in heart failure: a diagnostic accuracy study

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, December 2016
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Primary care REFerral for EchocaRdiogram (REFER) in heart failure: a diagnostic accuracy study
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, December 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x688393
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clare J Taylor, Andrea K Roalfe, Rachel Iles, FD Richard Hobbs, P Barton, J Deeks, D McCahon, MR Cowie, G Sutton, RC Davis, J Mant, T McDonagh, L Tait

Abstract

Symptoms of breathlessness, fatigue, and ankle swelling are common in general practice but deciding which patients are likely to have heart failure is challenging. To evaluate the performance of a clinical decision rule (CDR), with or without N-Terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) assay, for identifying heart failure. Prospective, observational, diagnostic validation study of patients aged >55 years, presenting with shortness of breath, lethargy, or ankle oedema, from 28 general practices in England. The outcome was test performance of the CDR and natriuretic peptide test in determining a diagnosis of heart failure. The reference standard was an expert consensus panel of three cardiologists. Three hundred and four participants were recruited, with 104 (34.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 28.9 to 39.8) having a confirmed diagnosis of heart failure. The CDR+NT-proBNP had a sensitivity of 90.4% (95% CI = 83.0 to 95.3) and specificity 45.5% (95% CI = 38.5 to 52.7). NT-proBNP level alone with a cut-off <400 pg/ml had sensitivity 76.9% (95% CI = 67.6 to 84.6) and specificity 91.5% (95% CI = 86.7 to 95.0). At the lower cut-off of NT-proBNP <125 pg/ml, sensitivity was 94.2% (95% CI = 87.9 to 97.9) and specificity 49.0% (95% CI = 41.9 to 56.1). At the low threshold of NT-proBNP <125 pg/ml, natriuretic peptide testing alone was better than a validated CDR+NT-proBNP in determining which patients presenting with symptoms went on to have a diagnosis of heart failure. The higher NT-proBNP threshold of 400 pg/ml may mean more than one in five patients with heart failure are not appropriately referred. Guideline natriuretic peptide thresholds may need to be revised.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 25%
Student > Master 4 20%
Other 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 55%
Unspecified 4 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,637,996
of 13,500,498 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#787
of 2,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,289
of 372,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#32
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,500,498 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 2,917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 372,943 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 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 63% of its contemporaries.