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 |
Validation of the pulse decomposition analysis algorithm using central arterial blood pressure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-925x-13-96 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin C Baruch, Kambiz Kalantari, David W Gerdt, Charles M Adkins |
| Abstract |
There is a significant need for continuous noninvasive blood pressure (cNIBP) monitoring, especially for anesthetized surgery and ICU recovery. cNIBP systems could lower costs and expand the use of continuous blood pressure monitoring, lowering risk and improving outcomes.The test system examined here is the CareTaker® and a pulse contour analysis algorithm, Pulse Decomposition Analysis (PDA). PDA's premise is that the peripheral arterial pressure pulse is a superposition of five individual component pressure pulses that are due to the left ventricular ejection and reflections and re-reflections from only two reflection sites within the central arteries.The hypothesis examined here is that the model's principal parameters P2P1 and T13 can be correlated with, respectively, systolic and pulse pressures. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 114 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 29 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 16% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 28 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 32 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 33 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 08 April 2021.
All research outputs
#2,267,119
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#43
of 867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,090
of 240,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 240,373 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.