↓ Skip to main content

Wolters Kluwer

Limitations of Current AHA Guidelines and Proposal of New Guidelines for the Preparticipation Examination of Athletes

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, November 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Limitations of Current AHA Guidelines and Proposal of New Guidelines for the Preparticipation Examination of Athletes
Published in
Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000203
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim P Dunn, David Pickham, Sonya Aggarwal, Divya Saini, Nikhil Kumar, Matthew T Wheeler, Marco Perez, Euan Ashley, Victor F Froelicher

Abstract

To examine the prevalence of athletes who screen positive with the preparticipation examination guidelines from the American Heart Association, the AHA 12-elements, in combination with 3 screening electrocardiogram (ECG) criteria. Observational cross-sectional study. Stanford University Sports Medicine Clinic. Total of 1596 participants, including 297 (167 male; mean age, 16.2 years) high school athletes, 1016 (541 male; mean age, 18.8 years) collegiate athletes, and 283 (mean age, 26.3 years) male professional athletes. Athletes were screened using the 8 personal and family history questions from the AHA 12-elements. Electrocardiograms were obtained for all participants and interpreted using Seattle criteria, Stanford criteria, and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations. Approximately one-quarter of all athletes (23.8%) had at least 1 positive response to the AHA personal and family history elements. High school and college athletes had similar rates of having at least 1 positive response (25.9% vs 27.4%), whereas professional athletes had a significantly lower rate of having at least 1 positive response (8.8%, P < 0.05). Females reported more episodes of unexplained syncope (11.4% vs 7.5%, P = 0.017) and excessive exertional dyspnea with exercise (11.1% vs 6.1%, P = 0.001) than males. High school athletes had more positive responses to the family history elements when compared with college athletes (P < 0.05). The percentage of athletes who had an abnormal ECG varied between Seattle criteria (6.0%), Stanford criteria (8.8%), and ESC recommendations (26.8%). Many athletes screen positive under current screening recommendations, and ECG results vary widely by interpretation criteria. In a patient population without any adverse cardiovascular events, the currently recommended AHA 12-elements have an unacceptably high rate of false positives. Newer screening guidelines are needed, with fewer false positives and evidence-based updates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 15 24%
Unknown 20 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 21 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 14 March 2016.
All research outputs
#1,629,139
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine
#282
of 1,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,614
of 294,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,810 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 294,808 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 70% of its contemporaries.