↓ Skip to main content

Acute effects of using an electronic nicotine-delivery device (electronic cigarette) on myocardial function: comparison with the effects of regular cigarettes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 1,941)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
109 X users
facebook
53 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users
reddit
3 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
275 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Acute effects of using an electronic nicotine-delivery device (electronic cigarette) on myocardial function: comparison with the effects of regular cigarettes
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2261-14-78
Pubmed ID
Authors

Konstantinos E Farsalinos, Dimitris Tsiapras, Stamatis Kyrzopoulos, Maria Savvopoulou, Vassilis Voudris

Abstract

Electronic cigarettes have been developed and marketed in recent years as smoking substitutes. However, no studies have evaluated their effects on the cardiovascular system. The purpose of this study was to examine the immediate effects of electronic cigarette use on left ventricular (LV) function, compared to the well-documented acute adverse effects of smoking.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 109 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 275 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
Malaysia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 264 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 53 19%
Student > Master 40 15%
Researcher 35 13%
Other 23 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 8%
Other 43 16%
Unknown 59 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 28%
Psychology 23 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 4%
Other 59 21%
Unknown 76 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 125. 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 09 April 2022.
All research outputs
#336,886
of 25,591,967 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#4
of 1,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,782
of 243,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,591,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,941 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 243,710 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.