↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Are the current recommendations for the use of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease applicable in low-income countries?

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Are the current recommendations for the use of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease applicable in low-income countries?
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s87398
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean Jacques N Noubiap, Jobert Richie N Nansseu

Abstract

Although evidence has accumulated that long-term aspirin therapy is beneficial in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), a lot of controversies persist regarding the benefit of aspirin use in primary prevention of CVD. In low-income countries (LIC) specifically, the decision to prescribe aspirin for primary CVD prevention is more problematic, as there is a dearth of evidence in this regard. Aspirin has been shown to have relative beneficial effects in preventing a first myocardial infarction, but not stroke. However, as stroke is the prevailing CVD in many LIC, especially in Africa, the benefit of aspirin in these settings is therefore questionable. Indeed, there is no published trial that has evaluated the benefits and risks of continuous aspirin therapy in populations of LIC. Furthermore, though cardiovascular risk assessment is crucial in decision-making for the use of aspirin in primary prevention of CVD, there are no risk assessment tools that have been validated in African populations. Studies are urgently warranted, to determine the usefulness of aspirin in primary prevention of CVD in low-income settings where the drug is highly available and affordable, as CVD is becoming the leading cause of deaths in LIC.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 21 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 25%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 21 33%
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 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#675
of 804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,333
of 276,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#18
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 276,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.