| Title |
Cardiovascular risk assessment in type 2 diabetes mellitus: comparison of the World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension risk prediction charts versus UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk engine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Vascular Health and Risk Management, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/vhrm.s90126 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Herath M Meththananda Herath, Thilak Priyantha Weerarathna, Dilini Umesha |
| Abstract |
Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at higher risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, and assessment of their cardiac risk is important for preventive strategies. The Ministry of Health of Sri Lanka has recommended World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension (WHO/ISH) charts for cardiac risk assessment in individuals with T2DM. However, the most suitable cardiac risk assessment tool for Sri Lankans with T2DM has not been studied. This study was designed to evaluate the performance of two cardiac risk assessments tools; WHO/ISH charts and UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine. Cardiac risk assessments were done in 2,432 patients with T2DM attending a diabetes clinic in Southern Sri Lanka using the two risk assessment tools. Validity of two assessment tools was further assessed by their ability to recognize individuals with raised low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and raised diastolic blood pressure in a cohort of newly diagnosed T2DM patients (n=332). WHO/ISH charts identified 78.4% of subjects as low cardiac risk whereas the UKPDS risk engine categorized 52.3% as low cardiac risk (P<0.001). In the risk categories of 10%-<20%, the UKPDS risk engine identified higher proportions of patients (28%) compared to WHO/ISH charts (7%). Approximately 6% of subjects were classified as low cardiac risk (<10%) by WHO/ISH when UKPDS recognized them as cardiac risk of >20%. Agreement between the two tools was poor (κ value =0.144, P<0.01). Approximately 82% of individuals categorized as low cardiac risk by WHO/ISH had higher LDL cholesterol than the therapeutic target of 100 mg/dL. There is a significant discrepancy between the two assessment tools with WHO/ISH risk chart recognizing higher proportions of patients having low cardiac risk than the UKPDS risk engine. Risk assessment by both assessment tools demonstrated poor sensitivity in identifying those with treatable levels of LDL cholesterol and diastolic blood pressure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 47% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 25 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 November 2015.
All research outputs
#16,183,746
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#475
of 808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,576
of 295,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 808 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 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 295,307 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.