↓ Skip to main content

Communicating statin evidence to support shared decision-making

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Communicating statin evidence to support shared decision-making
Published in
BMC Primary Care, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12875-016-0436-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruce Barrett, Jason Ricco, Margaret Wallace, David Kiefer, Dave Rakel

Abstract

The practice of clinical medicine rests on a foundation of ethical principles as well as scientific knowledge. Clinicians must artfully balance the principle of beneficence, doing what is best for patients, with autonomy, allowing patients to make their own well-informed health care decisions. The clinical communication process is complicated by varying degrees of confidence in scientific evidence regarding patient-oriented benefits, and by the fact that most medical options are associated with possible harms as well as potential benefits. Evidence-based clinical guidelines often neglect patient-oriented issues involved with the thoughtful practice of shared decision-making, where individual values, goals, and preferences should be prioritized. Guidelines on the use of statin medications for preventing cardiovascular events are a case in point. Current guidelines endorse the use of statins for people whose 10-year risk of cardiovascular events is as low as 7.5 %. Previous guidelines set the 10-year risk benchmark at 20 %. Meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that statins can reduce cardiovascular event rates by about 25 %, bringing 10-year risk from 7.5 to 5.6 %, for example, or from 20 to 15 %. Whether or not these benefits should justify the use of statins for individual patients depends on how those advantages are valued in comparison with disadvantages, such as side effect risks, and with inconveniences associated with taking a pill each day and visiting clinicians and laboratories regularly. Whether or not the overall benefit-harm balance justifies the use of a medication for an individual patient cannot be determined by a guidelines committee, a health care system, or even the attending physician. Instead, it is the individual patient who has a fundamental right to decide whether or not taking a drug is worthwhile. Researchers and professional organizations should endeavor to develop shared decision-making tools that provide up-to-date best evidence in easily understandable formats, so as to assist clinicians in helping their patients to make the decisions that are right for them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 95 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 32 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 30%
Psychology 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 33 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,169,543
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,381
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,622
of 315,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#21
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 315,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.