↓ Skip to main content

Screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12872-016-0256-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christophe Bauters, Gilles Lemesle

Abstract

Screening diabetic patients for the presence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) may potentially impact therapeutic management and outcome. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials addressing this question. We searched the PubMed database for studies reporting a randomized comparison of systematic screening for CAD in diabetic patients versus no systematic screening. The screening protocols were variable with the use of exercise electrocardiogram test, or stress echocardiography, or nuclear test, or coronary computed tomography angiography. The final analysis included 5 randomized studies and 3,314 patients altogether. The screening strategy had no detectable impact on outcome with odds ratios (OR) [95 % confidence interval (CI)] of 1.00 [0.67-1.50], 0.72 [0.33-1.57], 0.71 [0.40-1.27], and 0.60 [0.23-1.52] for all-cause death, cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and the composite cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction, respectively. Protocol-related coronary procedures were relatively infrequent in screened patients: coronary angiography was performed in 8 % of the cases, percutaneous coronary intervention in 2.5 %, and coronary artery bypass surgery in 1.5 %. There was no evidence for an effect of screening on the use of statins (OR = 1.19 [0.94-1.51]), aspirin (OR = 1.02 [0.83-1.25]), or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (OR = 0.97 [0.79-1.19]). The present analysis shows no evidence for a benefit of screening diabetic patients for the presence of asymptomatic CAD. The proportion of patients who undergo myocardial revascularization as a consequence of screening was low.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 96 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 29 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,965,704
of 25,727,480 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#1,365
of 1,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,262
of 320,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#25
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,727,480 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,944 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 320,208 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.