↓ Skip to main content

Utility of NT-proBNP as a rule-out test for left ventricular dysfunction in very old people with limiting dyspnoea: the Newcastle 85+ Study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Utility of NT-proBNP as a rule-out test for left ventricular dysfunction in very old people with limiting dyspnoea: the Newcastle 85+ Study
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2261-14-128
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Collerton, Andrew Kingston, Fahad Yousaf, Karen Davies, Antoinette Kenny, Dermot Neely, Carmen Martin-Ruiz, Guy MacGowan, Louise Robinson, Thomas BL Kirkwood, Bernard Keavney

Abstract

Guidelines advocate using B-type natriuretic peptides in the diagnostic work-up of suspected heart failure (HF). Their main role is to limit echocardiography rates by ruling out HF/LV dysfunction where peptide level is low. Recommended rule-out cut points vary between guidelines. The utility of B-type natriuretic peptides in the very old (85+) requires further investigation, with optimal cut points yet to be established. We examined NT-proBNP's utility, alone and in combination with history of myocardial infarction (MI), as a rule-out test for LV dysfunction in very old people with limiting dyspnoea.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 August 2020.
All research outputs
#6,407,558
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#321
of 1,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,981
of 252,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#7
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,604 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 252,277 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.