↓ Skip to main content

Is the ORBIT Bleeding Risk Score Superior to the HAS-BLED Score in Anticoagulated Atrial Fibrillation Patients?

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation Journal, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Is the ORBIT Bleeding Risk Score Superior to the HAS-BLED Score in Anticoagulated Atrial Fibrillation Patients?
Published in
Circulation Journal, August 2016
DOI 10.1253/circj.cj-16-0471
Pubmed ID
Authors

María Asunción Esteve-Pastor, Amaya García-Fernández, Manuel Macías, Francisco Sogorb, Mariano Valdés, Vanessa Roldán, Javier Muñiz, Lina Badimon, Inmaculada Roldán, Vicente Bertomeu-Martínez, Ángel Cequier, Gregory Y.H. Lip, Manuel Anguita, Francisco Marín, on behalf of FANTASIIA Investigators

Abstract

Several bleeding risk scores have been validated in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The ORBIT score has been recently proposed as a simple score with the best ability to predict major bleeding. The present study aimed to test the hypothesis that the ORBIT score was superior to the HAS-BLED score for predicting major bleeding and death in "real world" anticoagulated AF patients.Methods and Results:We analyzed the predictive performance for bleeding and death of 406 AF patients who underwent 571 electrical cardioversion procedures and 1,276 patients with permanent/persistent AF from the FANTASIIA registry. In the cardioversion population, 21 patients had major bleeding events and 26 patients died. The predictive performance for major bleeding of HAS-BLED and ORBIT were not significantly different (c-statistics 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.88) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.77-0.93), respectively; P=0.080). For the FANTASIIA population, 46 patients had major bleeding events and 50 patients died. The predictive performances for major bleeding of HAS-BLED and ORBIT were not significantly different (c-statistics 0.63 (95% CI 0.56-0.71) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.62-0.77), respectively; P=0.116). For death, the predictive performances of HAS-BLED and ORBIT were not significantly different in both populations. The ORBIT score categorized most patients as "low risk". Despite the original claims in its derivation paper, the ORBIT score was not superior to HAS-BLED for predicting major bleeding and death in a "real world" oral anticoagulated AF population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 11 26%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Unknown 15 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 April 2021.
All research outputs
#7,959,659
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Circulation Journal
#447
of 2,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,500
of 352,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation Journal
#9
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 352,645 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 57% of its contemporaries.