↓ Skip to main content

Suboptimal cardiovascular risk factor identification and management in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a cohort analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Suboptimal cardiovascular risk factor identification and management in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a cohort analysis
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/ar4118
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shailey S Desai, James D Myles, Mariana J Kaplan

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Accelerated cardiovascular (CV) disease significantly contributes to increased mortality in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, with a risk comparable to the one observed in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Part of this enhanced risk in RA is attributed to traditional cardiovascular risk factors (CRFs). The aims of this study were to determine how often traditional CRFs are identified and managed by (a) rheumatologists, compared with primary care physicians (PCPs) in RA patients; and (b) PCPs among patients with RA, DM, and the general population (GP). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study compared age/gender/ethnicity-matched patients from three groups: RA, DM, and GP (without RA or DM); n = 251 patients per group. Electronic patient records were reviewed during a continuous 12-month period between June 2007 and April 2011 to assess whether CRFs were identified and managed. RESULTS: In RA patients, PCPs managed obesity, BP, and lipids significantly more often than did rheumatologists. PCPs managed obesity, BP, and lipids significantly more often in diabetic patients than in the other two groups, and more often in the GP than in RA patients. In patients with elevated BMI, PCPs managed weight in 68% of the DM group, 46% of the GP, and 31% of the RA group (P < 0.0001 for all groups; P = 0.006 between RA and GP groups). CONCLUSIONS: Rheumatologists identify and manage CRFs less frequently than PCPs. PCPs manage CRFs less frequently in RA patients, compared to the GP and DM. Given the increased CV risk associated with RA, physicians need to more aggressively manage CRFs in these patients.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 9 13%

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 29 December 2012.
All research outputs
#8,937,438
of 11,191,240 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#1,304
of 1,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,112
of 309,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#35
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,191,240 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 309,852 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 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.