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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Does the association between adherence to statin medications and mortality depend on measurement approach? A retrospective cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-017-0339-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mhd. Wasem Alsabbagh, Dean Eurich, Lisa M. Lix, Thomas W. Wilson, David F. Blackburn |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between mortality and statin adherence using two different approaches to adherence measurement (summary versus repeated-measures). A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative data from Saskatchewan, Canada between 1994 and 2008. Eligible individuals received a prescription for a statin following hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Adherence was measured using proportion of days covered (PDC) expressed either as: 1) a fixed summary measure, or 2) as a repeatedly measured covariate. Multivariable Cox-proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between adherence and mortality. Among 9,051 individuals, optimal adherence (≥80%) modeled with a fixed summary measure was not associated with mortality benefits (adjusted HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09, p = 0.60). In contrast, repeated-measures approach resulted in a significant 25% reduction in the risk of death (adjusted HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85, p < 0.01). Unlike the summary measure, the repeated measures approach produces a significant reduction of all-cause mortality with optimal adherence. This effect may be a result of the repeated measures approach being more sensitive, or more prone to survival bias. Our findings clearly demonstrate the need to undertake (and report) multiple approaches when assessing the benefits of medication adherence. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 23% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 31% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 12 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,210,712
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#147
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,096
of 310,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 310,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.