↓ Skip to main content

No evidence that frailty modifies the positive impact of antihypertensive treatment in very elderly people: an investigation of the impact of frailty upon treatment effect in the HYpertension in the…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
252 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
236 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
No evidence that frailty modifies the positive impact of antihypertensive treatment in very elderly people: an investigation of the impact of frailty upon treatment effect in the HYpertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET) study, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of antihypertensives in people with hypertension aged 80 and over
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0328-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Warwick, Emanuela Falaschetti, Kenneth Rockwood, Arnold Mitnitski, Lutgarde Thijs, Nigel Beckett, Christopher Bulpitt, Ruth Peters

Abstract

Treatment for hypertension with antihypertensive medication has been shown to reduce stroke, cardiovascular events, and mortality in older adults, but there is concern that such treatment may not be appropriate in frailer older adults. To investigate whether there is an interaction between effect of treatment for hypertension and frailty in older adults, we calculated the frailty index (FI) for all available participants from the HYpertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET) study, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of antihypertensives in people with hypertension aged 80 and over, and obtained frailty adjusted estimates of the effect of treatment with antihypertensive medication on risk of stroke, cardiovascular events, and mortality. Participants in HYVET were randomised 1:1 to active treatment with indapamide sustained release 1.5 mg ± perindopril 2 to 4 mg or to matching placebo. Data relating to blood pressure, comorbidities, cognitive function, depression, and quality of life were collected at entry into the study and at subsequent follow-up visits. The FI was calculated at entry, based on 60 potential deficits. The distribution of FI was similar to that seen in population studies of adults aged 80 years and above (median FI, 0.17; IQR, 0.11-0.24). Cox regression was used to assess the impact of FI at entry to the study on subsequent risk of stroke, total mortality, and cardiovascular events. Models were stratified by region of recruitment and adjusted for sex and age at entry. Extending these models to include a term for a possible interaction between treatment for hypertension and FI provided a formula for the treatment effect as a function of FI. For all three models, the point estimates of the hazard ratios for the treatment effect decreased as FI increased, although to varying degrees and with varying certainty. We found no evidence of an interaction between effect of treatment for hypertension and frailty as measured by the FI. Both the frailer and the fitter older adults with hypertension appeared to gain from treatment. Further work to examine whether antihypertensive treatment modifies frailty as measured by the FI should be explored. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00122811 (July 2005).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 233 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 13%
Researcher 27 11%
Student > Bachelor 26 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 10%
Other 17 7%
Other 63 27%
Unknown 48 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 9%
Psychology 19 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 62 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 09 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,414,791
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#990
of 4,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,654
of 283,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#29
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 4,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 283,756 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 64% of its contemporaries.