| Title |
The prevalence of lacunar infarct decreases with aging in the elderly: a case-controlled analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s108166 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhiyou Cai, Wenbo He, Chuan-yong Peng, Jin Zhou, Qi-lan Xu, Zong-shan Wu |
| Abstract |
Lacunar infarct (LI) is well known as a heterogeneous primary disorder of cerebral small vessel. Compelling results have demonstrated that age is a risk factor to the prevalence of LI. However, the relationship between age and the prevalence of LI remains obscure. It is essential to note the relationship between age and the prevalence of LI through more clinical data. A total of 3,500 patients were included in the case-controlled study. All data were collected from the Examination Center of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Lu'an People's Hospital from January 2014 to December 2015. A primary discharge diagnosis of LI was done, and all subjects were evaluated as retrospective data. The relationship between the risk factors and the prevalence of diabetes and the relationship between age and the prevalence of diabetes was analyzed. A chi-square test was used to analyze the associations between different variables. A one-way analysis of variance was used to test the equality of three or more means at one time by using variances. Statistical significance was defined as a P-value of <0.05. The one-way analysis of variance demonstrated that the prevalence of LI increased with age before 60 years and decreased with age after 69 years. The same results were found in both the male and the female subjects. These results showed that the age-related risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, cerebral infarct, cardiovascular diseases, smoking, and drinking) have no relationship with the prevalence of LI on the basis of age. There is a significant difference among the different age ranges (P=0.0006). Two-tailed P-value (unpaired t-test) showed the mean significant difference between 30-39 years and 40-49 years (P=0.009) and between 70-79 years and 80-100 years (P=0.0196). F-test (to compare variances) demonstrated that the variances of the different age ranges are significantly different between 30-39 years and 40-49 years (P=0.0002), between 40-49 years and 50-59 years (P=0.0424), and between 70-79 years and 80-100 years (P=0.0003). The age-related risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, cerebral infarct, cardiovascular diseases, smoking, and drinking) have no relationship with the prevalence of LI on the basis of age. A decreasing prevalence of LI with aging occurs in the elderly, while the prevalence of LI increases with aging in the young and in adults. This investigation implicates that age is not a risk factor for LI in the elderly. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 50% |
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 27 May 2016.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,407
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,280
of 311,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#35
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 311,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.