↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Aspirin on Disability-free Survival in the Healthy Elderly

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, September 2018
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
196 news outlets
blogs
16 blogs
twitter
1812 X users
facebook
40 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
6 Google+ users
reddit
2 Redditors
video
6 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
403 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
597 Mendeley
Title
Effect of Aspirin on Disability-free Survival in the Healthy Elderly
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1800722
Pubmed ID
Authors

John J McNeil, Robyn L Woods, Mark R Nelson, Christopher M Reid, Brenda Kirpach, Rory Wolfe, Elsdon Storey, Raj C Shah, Jessica E Lockery, Andrew M Tonkin, Anne B Newman, Jeff D Williamson, Karen L Margolis, Michael E Ernst, Walter P Abhayaratna, Nigel Stocks, Sharyn M Fitzgerald, Suzanne G Orchard, Ruth E Trevaks, Lawrence J Beilin, Geoffrey A Donnan, Peter Gibbs, Colin I Johnston, Joanne Ryan, Barbara Radziszewska, Richard Grimm, Anne M Murray

Abstract

Background Information on the use of aspirin to increase healthy independent life span in older persons is limited. Whether 5 years of daily low-dose aspirin therapy would extend disability-free life in healthy seniors is unclear. Methods From 2010 through 2014, we enrolled community-dwelling persons in Australia and the United States who were 70 years of age or older (or ≥65 years of age among blacks and Hispanics in the United States) and did not have cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg per day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo orally. The primary end point was a composite of death, dementia, or persistent physical disability. Secondary end points reported in this article included the individual components of the primary end point and major hemorrhage. Results A total of 19,114 persons with a median age of 74 years were enrolled, of whom 9525 were randomly assigned to receive aspirin and 9589 to receive placebo. A total of 56.4% of the participants were women, 8.7% were nonwhite, and 11.0% reported previous regular aspirin use. The trial was terminated at a median of 4.7 years of follow-up after a determination was made that there would be no benefit with continued aspirin use with regard to the primary end point. The rate of the composite of death, dementia, or persistent physical disability was 21.5 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 21.2 per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.11; P=0.79). The rate of adherence to the assigned intervention was 62.1% in the aspirin group and 64.1% in the placebo group in the final year of trial participation. Differences between the aspirin group and the placebo group were not substantial with regard to the secondary individual end points of death from any cause (12.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.1 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group), dementia, or persistent physical disability. The rate of major hemorrhage was higher in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (3.8% vs. 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.62; P<0.001). Conclusions Aspirin use in healthy elderly persons did not prolong disability-free survival over a period of 5 years but led to a higher rate of major hemorrhage than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; ASPREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038583 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,812 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 597 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 597 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 80 13%
Other 68 11%
Student > Bachelor 50 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 8%
Student > Master 44 7%
Other 153 26%
Unknown 157 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 232 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 30 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 4%
Psychology 18 3%
Other 59 10%
Unknown 198 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2595. 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 21 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,917
of 25,718,113 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#188
of 32,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44
of 336,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#3
of 282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,718,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 336,141 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.