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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Endothelin antagonists in subarachnoid hemorrhage: what next?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc11822 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R Loch Macdonald |
| Abstract |
ABSTRACT: In the previous issue of Critical Care, Ma and colleagues perform a meta-analysis of five randomized, clinical trials of endothelin antagonists in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. There are four trials using clazosentan and one trial with TAK-044. These studies show that endothelin plays an important role in the genesis of angiographic vasospasm. The benefit of these drugs is less on delayed cerebral ischemia and nonexistent on overall clinical outcome. Why the drugs reduce vasospasm but do not improve outcome could be because of side effects such as hypotension and pulmonary complications that are more common in patients treated with endothelin antagonists or because rescue therapy, which is used more in the placebo groups, improves outcome in these patients to the same extent as the endothelin antagonists. As the authors conclude, future studies of these drugs will need to consider these and other factors in their design. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 30% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 50% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
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 14 April 2013.
All research outputs
#16,579,551
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,357
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,035
of 196,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#82
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 196,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.