↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic performance of various familial hypercholesterolaemia diagnostic criteria compared to Dutch lipid clinic criteria in an Asian population

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Diagnostic performance of various familial hypercholesterolaemia diagnostic criteria compared to Dutch lipid clinic criteria in an Asian population
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12872-017-0694-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suraya Abdul-Razak, Radzi Rahmat, Alicezah Mohd Kasim, Thuhairah Abdul Rahman, Suhaila Muid, Nadzimah Mohd Nasir, Zubin Ibrahim, Sazzli Kasim, Zaliha Ismail, Rohana Abdul Ghani, Abdul Rais Sanusi, Azhari Rosman, Hapizah Nawawi

Abstract

Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a genetic disorder with a high risk of developing premature coronary artery disease that should be diagnosed as early as possible. Several clinical diagnostic criteria for FH are available, with the Dutch Lipid Clinic Criteria (DLCC) being widely used. Information regarding diagnostic performances of the other criteria against the DLCC is scarce. We aimed to examine the diagnostic performance of the Simon-Broom (SB) Register criteria, the US Make Early Diagnosis to Prevent Early Deaths (US MEDPED) and the Japanese FH Management Criteria (JFHMC) compared to the DLCC. Seven hundered fifty five individuals from specialist clinics and community health screenings with LDL-c level ≥ 4.0 mmol/L were selected and diagnosed as FH using the DLCC, the SB Register criteria, the US MEDPED and the JFHMC. The sensitivity, specificity, efficiency, positive and negative predictive values of individuals screened with the SB register criteria, US MEDPED and JFHMC were assessed against the DLCC. We found the SB register criteria identified more individuals with FH compared to the US MEDPED and the JFHMC (212 vs. 105 vs. 195; p < 0.001) when assessed against the DLCC. The SB Register criteria, the US MEDPED and the JFHMC had low sensitivity (51.1% vs. 25.3% vs. 47.0% respectively). The SB Register criteria showed better diagnostic performance than the other criteria with 98.8% specificity, 28.6% efficiency value, 98.1% and 62.3% for positive and negative predictive values respectively. The SB Register criteria appears to be more useful in identifying positive cases leading to genetic testing compared to the JFHMC and US MEDPED in this Asian population. However, further research looking into a suitable diagnosis criterion with high likelihood of positive genetic findings is required in the Asian population including in Malaysia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Student > Master 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 18 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 April 2022.
All research outputs
#14,958,596
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#756
of 1,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,658
of 325,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#12
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,637 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 325,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.