↓ Skip to main content

Generalizability of Blood Pressure Lowering Trials to Older Patients: Cross‐Sectional Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, September 2020
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
42 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Generalizability of Blood Pressure Lowering Trials to Older Patients: Cross‐Sectional Analysis
Published in
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, September 2020
DOI 10.1111/jgs.16749
Pubmed ID
Authors

James P. Sheppard, Mark Lown, Jenni Burt, Eleanor Temple, Rebecca Lowe, Hannah Ashby, Oliver Todd, Julie Allen, Gary A. Ford, Rosalyn Fraser, Carl Heneghan, F.D. Richard Hobbs, Sue Jowett, Paul Little, Jonathan Mant, Jill Mollison, Rupert Payne, Marney Williams, Ly‐Mee Yu, Richard J. McManus

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials are used to inform clinical guidelines on the management of hypertension in older adults, but it is unclear to what extent these trials represent the general population attending routine clinical practice. This study aimed to define the proportion and characteristics of patients eligible for hypertension trials conducted in older people. Cross-sectional study. A total of 24 general practices in England. Anonymized electronic health record data from all individuals aged 80 and older. Descriptive statistics were used to define the proportion and characteristics of patients eligible for two previous medication intensification trials (HYVET, SPRINT) and one medication reduction trial (OPTiMISE). A logistic regression model was constructed to estimate predictors of eligibility for each trial. Of 15,376 patients identified, 268 (1.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-2.0%), 5,290 (34.4%; 95%CI = 33.7-35.2%), and 3,940 (25.6%; 95%CI = 24.9-26.3%) were eligible for the HYVET, SPRINT, and OPTiMISE trials, respectively. Between 5.6% and 30.7% of exclusions from each trial were due to eligibility criteria excluding those with high or uncontrolled blood pressure. Frailty (odds ratio [OR] = .44; 95%CI = .36-.54 [OPTiMISE]), cardiovascular polypharmacy (OR = .61; 95%CI = .55-.68 [SPRINT]) and multimorbidity (OR = .72; 95%CI = .64-.82 [SPRINT]) were associated with a lower likelihood of being eligible for one or more of the trials. A possible unintended consequence of blood pressure criteria used by trials attempting to answer different primary questions is that for many older patients, no trial evidence exists to inform treatment decisions in routine practice. Caution should be exercised when applying results from existing trials to patients with frailty or multimorbidity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 50%
Other 2 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 2 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Unknown 3 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 20 September 2020.
All research outputs
#794,445
of 15,947,129 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
#919
of 5,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,610
of 234,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
#29
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,947,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 234,629 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.