| Title |
Frailty in advanced heart failure: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Heart Failure Reviews, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10741-015-9493-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sunita R. Jha, Hakeem S. K. Ha, Louise D. Hickman, Malin Hannu, Patricia M. Davidson, Peter S. Macdonald, Phillip J. Newton |
| Abstract |
Frailty is a common geriatric syndrome of increased vulnerability to adverse events. The prevalence of frailty among chronic heart failure (CHF) is high and confers a greater risk of adverse events including falls, hospitalisation and mortality. There have been few studies assessing frailty in CHF. A review of the key databases was conducted from 2004 to 2014 including the key search terms 'frail elderly' and 'heart failure'. The following electronic databases were searched: Medline, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health and Academic Search Complete, with reference lists being manually searched. Articles were included if frailty was assessed using a valid measuring tool in a population with a confirmed diagnosis of CHF. The search yielded a total of 393 articles with 8 articles being selected for review. The prevalence of frailty among those with CHF was high, ranging from 18 to 54 %. The frailty phenotype and geriatric assessments tools were the most common frailty measures utilised; high rates of co-morbidity, hospitalisation and mortality were identified. Frailty is common in CHF and is associated with adverse outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 3 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 139 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 40 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 45 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 March 2019.
All research outputs
#12,931,497
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from Heart Failure Reviews
#341
of 678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,305
of 266,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart Failure Reviews
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 266,402 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.