ASCVD Risk Estimator Plus
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 76 keywords for ASCVD Risk Estimator Plus in Apple App Store
ASCVD Risk Estimator Plus tracks 76 keywords (4 keywords rank; 72 need traction). Key metrics: 0% top-10 coverage, opportunity 70.1, difficulty 38.3, best rank 67.
Tracked keywords
76
4 ranked • 72 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
0%
Best rank 67 • Latest leader 107
Avg opportunity
70.1
Top keyword: risk
Avg difficulty
38.3
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 65.2
risk
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.1 • Rank 107
Competitors: 87
- 62.1
patients
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 37.6 • Rank —
Competitors: 35
- 64.6
patient
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 38.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 33
- 68.2
course
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.1 • Rank —
Competitors: 128
- 63.6
decision
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.1 • Rank —
Competitors: 61
Unranked opportunities
patients
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 37.6 • Competitors: 35
patient
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 38.9 • Competitors: 33
course
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.1 • Competitors: 128
decision
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 39.1 • Competitors: 61
monitoring
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.8 • Competitors: 99
High competition keywords
help
Total apps: 162,244 • Major competitors: 2,472
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.9
best
Total apps: 124,586 • Major competitors: 2,642
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.9
information
Total apps: 121,649 • Major competitors: 1,140
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 52.4
using
Total apps: 114,639 • Major competitors: 1,562
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.1
support
Total apps: 83,360 • Major competitors: 1,121
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 51.4
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| risk | 73 | 100 | 41 | 65 8,380 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.1 | 107 | 67 | 87 major competitor apps |
| preventive | 70 | 100 | 30 | 47 697 competing apps Median installs: 300 Avg rating: 4.0 | 110 | 109 | 9 major competitor apps |
| prevention | 71 | 100 | 32 | 53 1,535 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | 123 | 123 | 13 major competitor apps |
| cardiovascular | 70 | 100 | 31 | 50 971 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | 186 | 186 | 7 major competitor apps |
| best | 66 | 100 | 54 | 85 124,586 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,642 major competitor apps |
| change | 69 | 100 | 48 | 77 40,802 competing apps Median installs: 600 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 783 major competitor apps |
| care | 70 | 100 | 47 | 75 32,591 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 527 major competitor apps |
| support | 67 | 100 | 51 | 82 83,360 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,121 major competitor apps |
| date | 69 | 100 | 49 | 77 44,175 competing apps Median installs: 300 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 497 major competitor apps |
| information | 66 | 100 | 52 | 85 121,649 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,140 major competitor apps |
| management | 69 | 100 | 48 | 78 48,804 competing apps Median installs: 300 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 345 major competitor apps |
| using | 66 | 100 | 53 | 84 114,639 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,562 major competitor apps |
| help | 65 | 100 | 55 | 87 162,244 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,472 major competitor apps |
| patients | 73 | 100 | 38 | 62 5,407 competing apps Median installs: 200 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 35 major competitor apps |
| around | 69 | 100 | 52 | 78 49,539 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,035 major competitor apps |
| patient | 73 | 100 | 39 | 65 7,649 competing apps Median installs: 250 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 33 major competitor apps |
| tool | 69 | 100 | 48 | 79 53,502 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 383 major competitor apps |
| plan | 69 | 100 | 49 | 77 42,295 competing apps Median installs: 494 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 757 major competitor apps |
| plus | 72 | 100 | 47 | 70 16,088 competing apps Median installs: 750 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 475 major competitor apps |
| type | 71 | 100 | 45 | 73 25,638 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 292 major competitor apps |
| discussion | 71 | 100 | 35 | 55 2,104 competing apps Median installs: 300 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 10 major competitor apps |
| year | 72 | 100 | 45 | 71 19,247 competing apps Median installs: 600 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 395 major competitor apps |
| course | 73 | 100 | 42 | 68 12,658 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 128 major competitor apps |
| user | 67 | 100 | 50 | 81 77,194 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 981 major competitor apps |
| feedback | 70 | 100 | 47 | 74 30,174 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 393 major competitor apps |
App Description
Use the app to:
• Estimate a patient’s initial 10-year ASCVD risk using the pooled cohort equation
• Receive an individualized, risk-based, intervention approach
• Project the impact of specific interventions on a patient’s risk
• Guide clinician-patient discussion around customizing an intervention plan
• Update risk at follow-up based on a patient’s response to therapy using the Million Hearts Longitudinal model
Advice from the app is derived from the 2020 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Novel Therapies for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes, the 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, the 2018 ACC/AHA et al. Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol, the 2018 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Tobacco Cessation Treatment, the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk, and the 2016 Million Hearts Longitudinal ASCVD Risk Assessment Tool user guide.
The information and recommendations in this clinical decision support tool are meant to support clinical decision making. They are not meant to represent the only or best course of care or replace clinical judgment. Therapeutic options should be determined after discussion between the patient and their care provider.