↓ Skip to main content

Variation in GP decisions on antihypertensive treatment in oldest-old and frail individuals across 29 countries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Variation in GP decisions on antihypertensive treatment in oldest-old and frail individuals across 29 countries
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0486-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sven Streit, Marjolein Verschoor, Nicolas Rodondi, Daiana Bonfim, Robert A. Burman, Claire Collins, Gerasimovska Kitanovska Biljana, Sandra Gintere, Raquel Gómez Bravo, Kathryn Hoffmann, Claudia Iftode, Kasper L. Johansen, Ngaire Kerse, Tuomas H. Koskela, Sanda Kreitmayer Peštić, Donata Kurpas, Christian D. Mallen, Hubert Maisoneuve, Christoph Merlo, Yolanda Mueller, Christiane Muth, Marija Petek Šter, Ferdinando Petrazzuoli, Thomas Rosemann, Martin Sattler, Zuzana Švadlenková, Athina Tatsioni, Hans Thulesius, Victoria Tkachenko, Peter Torzsa, Rosy Tsopra, Tuz Canan, Rita P. A. Viegas, Shlomo Vinker, Margot W. M. de Waal, Andreas Zeller, Jacobijn Gussekloo, Rosalinde K. E. Poortvliet

Abstract

In oldest-old patients (>80), few trials showed efficacy of treating hypertension and they included mostly the healthiest elderly. The resulting lack of knowledge has led to inconsistent guidelines, mainly based on systolic blood pressure (SBP), cardiovascular disease (CVD) but not on frailty despite the high prevalence in oldest-old. This may lead to variation how General Practitioners (GPs) treat hypertension. Our aim was to investigate treatment variation of GPs in oldest-olds across countries and to identify the role of frailty in that decision. Using a survey, we compared treatment decisions in cases of oldest-old varying in SBP, CVD, and frailty. GPs were asked if they would start antihypertensive treatment in each case. In 2016, we invited GPs in Europe, Brazil, Israel, and New Zealand. We compared the percentage of cases that would be treated per countries. A logistic mixed-effects model was used to derive odds ratio (OR) for frailty with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for SBP, CVD, and GP characteristics (sex, location and prevalence of oldest-old per GP office, and years of experience). The mixed-effects model was used to account for the multiple assessments per GP. The 29 countries yielded 2543 participating GPs: 52% were female, 51% located in a city, 71% reported a high prevalence of oldest-old in their offices, 38% and had >20 years of experience. Across countries, considerable variation was found in the decision to start antihypertensive treatment in the oldest-old ranging from 34 to 88%. In 24/29 (83%) countries, frailty was associated with GPs' decision not to start treatment even after adjustment for SBP, CVD, and GP characteristics (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.48-0.59; ORs per country 0.11-1.78). Across countries, we found considerable variation in starting antihypertensive medication in oldest-old. The frail oldest-old had an odds ratio of 0.53 of receiving antihypertensive treatment. Future hypertension trials should also include frail patients to acquire evidence on the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment in oldest-old patients with frailty, with the aim to get evidence-based data for clinical decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 6 7%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 26 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 30 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 May 2019.
All research outputs
#13,512,673
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,007
of 3,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,811
of 311,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#33
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 311,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.