↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Frailty and quality of life in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Frailty and quality of life in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/cia.s99842
Pubmed ID
Authors

Izabella Uchmanowicz, Radosław Wontor, Magdalena Lisiak

Abstract

Frail elderly people are at risk of developing adverse health outcomes such as disability, hospitalization, and mortality. In recent years, the literature has drawn attention to the role of frailty syndrome (FS) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). There are few studies regarding the relationship between two multidimensional variables such as FS and quality of life (QoL). The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between FS and early QoL of elderly patients with ACS (≥65 years old). The study was conducted among 91 patients aged 65 years and over with ACS. The MacNew questionnaire was used to evaluate QoL and the Tilburg frailty indicator to evaluate frailty. FS was present in 82.4% of patients. The average Tilburg frailty indicator score was 7.43±2.57. A negative correlation between the global values of FS and QoL was shown (r=-0.549, P<0.05). The vulnerability factors that negatively affected early QoL were: FS, marital status, conservative therapy, and hypertension. In multivariate analysis, FS was found to be the independent predictor of worse QoL (β ± standard error -0.277±0.122, P=0.026). The presence of FS has a negative impact on early QoL in patients with ACS. The study suggests that in elderly patients with ACS, there is a need to identify frailty in order to implement additional therapeutic and nursing strategies in ACS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 25%
Psychology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 13 21%

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 06 May 2016.
All research outputs
#5,793,723
of 7,659,635 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#752
of 943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,685
of 266,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#44
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,659,635 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 943 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. 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 266,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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.