↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

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…

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
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, January 2015
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s90126
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meththananda Herath, Thilak 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.

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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 22%
Student > Postgraduate 14 18%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 5 6%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 49%
Unspecified 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 14 18%

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 17 November 2015.
All research outputs
#4,551,348
of 10,153,015 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#178
of 469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,377
of 231,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,153,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 54th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 469 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 231,245 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.