↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness and patient safety of platelet aggregation inhibitors in the prevention of cardiovascular disease and ischemic stroke in older adults – a systematic review

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Effectiveness and patient safety of platelet aggregation inhibitors in the prevention of cardiovascular disease and ischemic stroke in older adults – a systematic review
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0572-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maren Meinshausen, Anja Rieckert, Anna Renom-Guiteras, Moritz Kröger, Christina Sommerauer, Ilkka Kunnamo, Yolanda V. Martinez, Aneez Esmail, Andreas Sönnichsen

Abstract

Platelet aggregation inhibitors (PAI) are among the most frequently prescribed drugs in older people, though evidence about risks and benefits of their use in older adults is scarce. The objectives of this systematic review are firstly to identify the risks and benefits of their use in the prevention and treatment of vascular events in older adults, and secondly to develop recommendations on discontinuing PAI in this population if risks outweigh benefits. Staged systematic review consisting of three searches. Searches 1 and 2 identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Search 3 included controlled intervention and observational studies from review-articles not included in searches 1 and 2. All articles were assessed by two independent reviewers regarding the type of study, age of participants, type of intervention, and clinically relevant outcomes. After data extraction and quality appraisal we developed recommendations to stop the prescribing of specific drugs in older adults following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Overall, 2385 records were screened leading to an inclusion of 35 articles reporting on 22 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 11 randomised controlled trials, and two observational studies. Mean ages ranged from 57.0 to 84.6 years. Ten studies included a subgroup analysis by age. Overall, based on the evaluated evidence, three recommendations were formulated. First, the use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in older people cannot be recommended due to an uncertainty in the risk-benefit ratio (weak recommendation; low quality of evidence). Secondly, the combination of ASA and clopidogrel in patients without specific indications should be avoided (strong recommendation; moderate quality of evidence). Lastly, to improve the effectiveness and reduce the risks of stroke prevention therapy in older people with atrial fibrillation (AF) and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥ 2, the use of ASA for the primary prevention of stroke should be discontinued in preference for the use of oral anticoagulants (weak recommendation; low quality of evidence). The use of ASA for the primary prevention of CVD and the combination therapy of ASA and clopidogrel for the secondary prevention of vascular events in older people may not be justified. The use of oral anticoagulants instead of ASA in older people with atrial fibrillation may be recommended. Further high quality studies with older adults are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 34 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Psychology 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 42 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 19 August 2019.
All research outputs
#4,957,100
of 24,116,965 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,309
of 3,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,234
of 329,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#23
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,116,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,331 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 329,599 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 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 63% of its contemporaries.