↓ Skip to main content

Time-to-event versus ten-year-absolute-risk in cardiovascular risk prevention – does it make a difference? Results from the Optimizing-Risk-Communication (OptRisk) randomized-controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Time-to-event versus ten-year-absolute-risk in cardiovascular risk prevention – does it make a difference? Results from the Optimizing-Risk-Communication (OptRisk) randomized-controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0393-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles Christian Adarkwah, Nikita Jegan, Monika Heinzel-Gutenbrunner, Felicitas Kühne, Uwe Siebert, Uwe Popert, Norbert Donner-Banzhoff, Sarah Kürwitz

Abstract

The concept of shared-decision-making is a well-established approach to increase the participation of patients in medical decisions. Using lifetime risk or time-to-event (TTE) formats has been increasingly suggested as they might have advantages, e.g. in younger patients, to better show consequences of unhealthy behaviour. In this study, the most-popular ten-year risk illustration in the decision-aid-software arriba(TM) (emoticons), is compared within a randomised trial to a new-developed TTE illustration, which is based on a Markov model. Thirty-two General Practitioners (GPs) took part in the study. A total of 304 patients were recruited and counseled by their GPs with arriba(TM), and randomized to either the emoticons or the TTE illustration, followed by a patient questionnaire to figure out the degree of shared-decision-making (PEF-FB9, German questionnaire to measure the participation in the shared decision-making process, primary outcome), as well as the decisional conflict, perceived risk, accessibility and the degree of information, which are all secondary outcomes. Regarding our primary outcome PEF-FB9 the new TTE illustration is not inferior compared to the well-established emoticons taking the whole study population into account. Furthermore, the non-inferiority of the innovative TTE could be confirmed for all secondary outcome variables. The explorative analysis indicates even advantages in younger patients (below 46 years of age). The TTE format seems to be as useful as the well-established emoticons. For certain patient populations, especially younger patients, the TTE may be even superior to demonstrate a cardiovascular risk at early stages. Our results suggest that time-to-event illustrations should be considered for current decision support tools covering cardiovascular prevention. The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register and at the WHO International Clinical Trials Register Platform ( ICTRP, ID DRKS00004933 ); registered 2 February 2016 (retrospectively registered).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 19%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Librarian 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 16 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 28%
Psychology 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 24 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 June 2021.
All research outputs
#6,462,358
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#598
of 2,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,213
of 419,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#9
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,026 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 419,847 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 64% of its contemporaries.