↓ Skip to main content

Agreement between Myocardial Infarction Patients and Their Spouses on Reporting of Data on 82 Cardiovascular Risk Exposures

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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.
Title
Agreement between Myocardial Infarction Patients and Their Spouses on Reporting of Data on 82 Cardiovascular Risk Exposures
Published in
PLoS ONE, July 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0132601
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hedley Knewjen Quintana, Max Vikström, Tomas Andersson, Johan Hallqvist, Karin Leander

Abstract

The validity of exposure data collected from proxy respondents of myocardial infarction patients has scarcely been studied. We assessed the level of disagreement between myocardial infarction patients and their spouses with respect to the reporting of the patient´s cardiovascular risk exposures. Within the frame of the Stockholm Heart Epidemiology Program (SHEEP), a case-control study of risk factors of myocardial infarction performed in Stockholm county 1992-1994, a subset of 327 first time myocardial infarction cases aged 45-70 who survived >28 days after the event and who co-habited with a spouse or common-law spouse (proxy) were identified between 1993-04-05 and 1993-12-31. Among these, 243 cases participated along with their respective proxy in the present study. Control individuals, matched to cases by age, sex and residential area were also included (n = 243). Data were collected using questionnaires. Using conditional logistic regression we calculated for each of 82 exposures the odds ratio based on information collected from 1) myocardial infarction cases and controls [odds ratio A] and 2) proxies and the same set of controls [odds ratio B]. Disagreement was measured by calculating the ratio between odds ratio B and odds ratio A with 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated using resampling bootstrap. For the vast majority of the exposures considered including diet, smoking, education, work-related stress, and family history of CVD, there was no statistically significant disagreement between myocardial infarction patients and proxies (n = 243 pairs). However, leisure time physical inactivity (proxy bias = 1.59, 95% CI 1.05-3.57) was overestimated by spouses compared to myocardial infarction patients. A few other exposures including some sleep-related problems and work-related issues also showed disagreement. Myocardial infarction patients and their spouses similarly reported data on a wide range of exposures including the majority of the traditional cardiovascular risk factors, leisure time physical inactivity being an exception.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Romania 1 4%
Sweden 1 4%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 19%
Researcher 4 15%
Unspecified 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Other 9 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 33%
Unspecified 6 22%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Psychology 2 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 7%
Other 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 2016.
All research outputs
#6,172,841
of 12,124,906 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#53,554
of 133,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,193
of 235,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#2,321
of 6,380 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,124,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. 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 235,650 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,380 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 62% of its contemporaries.