↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Detection of peripheral arterial disease with an improved automated device: comparison of a new oscillometric device and the standard Doppler method

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Detection of peripheral arterial disease with an improved automated device: comparison of a new oscillometric device and the standard Doppler method
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s106534
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandrine Millasseau, Gregor Gersak, Matjaz Span, Marko Meza, Andrej Kosir

Abstract

In occidental countries, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is an important health issue; however, most subjects are asymptomatic (~50%) and therefore undiagnosed and untreated. Current guidelines recommend screening for PAD in primary care setting using ankle brachial index (ABI) in all patients with cardiovascular risks. This is, however, not performed strictly because the standard Doppler method is cumbersome and time-consuming. Here, we evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of ABI measurements obtained by an improved automated oscillometric device, the MESI ABPI MD(®) device, and the standard Doppler method. ABI was measured in random order in a general practice with Doppler probes by two operators separately (ABI_dop) and twice with the MESI ABPI MD device (ABI_mesi). ABI_dop was calculated dividing the highest systolic blood pressure from both tibial and dorsalis pedis arteries by the highest systolic blood pressure of both brachial arteries. ABI_mesi was obtained automatically with simultaneous measurements on three extremities. According to ABI_dop, PAD was present in 10% of the 136 screened subjects (68.2±7.4 years). Interoperator coefficient of variation was 5.5% for ABI_dop, while the intrasubject coefficient of variation for ABI_mesi was 3.0%. ABI_mesi was correlated with ABI_dop (R=0.61, P<0.0001). The difference between the two techniques was 0.06±0.14 with ABI_mesi providing slightly higher values (P<0.0001) and negligible bias across the range (R=0.19, P<0.0001). Therefore, ABI_mesi ≤1 had a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 96% to detect ABI_dop ≤0.9 and hence PAD. Doppler measurements took seven times longer than MESI ABPI MD measurements to be performed. In conclusion, MESI improved automated oscillometric method and offered a faster and repeatable measurement of ABI with only a small, clinically irrelevant overestimation of ABI value. The tested MESI ABPI MD-improved oscillometric system can be used as a screening tool for patients in general practice and would enable family doctors to comply with current guidelines for PAD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Other 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Engineering 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 24%

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 05 September 2017.
All research outputs
#5,933,580
of 18,195,986 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#220
of 659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,685
of 272,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,195,986 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 272,688 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.