↓ Skip to main content

Patent foramen ovale and scuba diving: a practical guide for physicians on when to refer for screening

Overview of attention for article published in Extreme Physiology & Medicine, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 107)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Patent foramen ovale and scuba diving: a practical guide for physicians on when to refer for screening
Published in
Extreme Physiology & Medicine, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-7648-2-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver Sykes, James E Clark

Abstract

Divers are taught some basic physiology during their training. There is therefore some underlying knowledge and understandable concern in the diving community about the presence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) as a cause of decompression illness (DCI). There is an agreement that PFO screening should not be done routinely on all divers; however, when to screen selected divers is not clear. We present the basic physiology and current existing guidelines for doctors, advice on the management and identify which groups of divers should be referred for consideration of PFO screening. Venous bubbles after diving and right to left shunts are common, but DCI is rare. Why this is the case is not clear, but the divers look to doctors for guidance on PFO screening and closure; both of which are not without risks. Ideally, we should advise and apply guidelines that are consistent and based on best available evidence. We hope this guideline and flow chart helps address these issues with regard to PFOs and diving.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Student > Master 8 12%
Other 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 59%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 December 2022.
All research outputs
#4,598,766
of 23,394,907 outputs
Outputs from Extreme Physiology & Medicine
#43
of 107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,843
of 201,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Extreme Physiology & Medicine
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,394,907 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 201,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.