↓ Skip to main content

Subclinical atherosclerosis, cardiovascular health, and disease risk: is there a case for the Cardiovascular Health Index in the primary prevention population?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Subclinical atherosclerosis, cardiovascular health, and disease risk: is there a case for the Cardiovascular Health Index in the primary prevention population?
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5263-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah S. Singh, Courtney S. Pilkerton, Carl D. Shrader, Stephanie J. Frisbee

Abstract

Current primary prevention guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prioritize risk identification, risk stratification using clinical and risk scores, and risk reduction with lifestyle interventions and pharmacotherapy. Subclinical atherosclerosis is an early indicator of atherosclerotic burden and its timely recognition can slow or prevent progression to CVD. Thus, individuals with subclinical atherosclerosis are a priority for primary prevention. This study takes a practical approach to answering a challenge commonly faced by primary care practitioners: in patients with no known CVD, how can individuals likely to have subclinical atherosclerosis be easily identified using existing clinical data and/or information provided by the patient? Using NHANES (1999-2004), 6091 men and women aged ≥40 years without any CVD comprised the primary prevention population for this study. Subclinical atherosclerosis was determined via ankle-brachial index (ABI) using established cutoffs (subclinical atherosclerosis defined as ABI (0.91-0.99); normal defined as ABI (1.00-1.30)). Three common scores were calculated: the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), the Metabolic Syndrome (MetS), and the Cardiovascular Health Index (CVHI). Logistic regression analysis assessed the association between these scores and subclinical atherosclerosis. The sensitively and specificity of these scores in identifying subclinical atherosclerosis was determined. In eligible participants, 3.8% had subclinical atherosclerosis. Optimum and average CVHI was associated with decreased odds for subclinical atherosclerosis. High, but not intermediate-risk, FRS was associated with increased odds for subclinical atherosclerosis. MetS was not associated with subclinical atherosclerosis. Of the 3 scores, CVHI was the most sensitive in identifying subclinical atherosclerosis and had the lowest number of missed cases. The FRS was the most specific but least sensitive of the 3 scores, and had almost 10-fold more missed cases vs. the CVHI. The MetS had "middle" sensitivity and specificity, and 10-fold more missed cases vs. the CVHI. Results from this study suggest that routine administration of the CVHI in a primary prevention population would yield the benefits of identifying patients with existing subclinical CVD not identified through traditional CVD risk factors or scores, and bring physical activity and nutrition to the forefront of provider-patient discussions about lifestyle factors critical to maintaining and prolonging cardiovascular health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 14%
Student > Master 10 12%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 11%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 22 27%

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 12 December 2018.
All research outputs
#8,766,272
of 15,917,403 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,925
of 10,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,437
of 281,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,917,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 281,256 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them