↓ Skip to main content

Intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials (protocol)

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials (protocol)
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-3-24
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sultan Altayyar, Bram Rochwerg, Sami Alnasser, Awad Al-omari, Bandar Baw, Alison Fox-Robichaud, Waleed Alhazzani

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock is the leading cause of death in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Despite significant advancements in health technology and research, hospital mortality approaches 50%. The intra-aortic balloon pump is a mechanical hemodynamic assist device that has been used for over 40 years in the management of patients with cardiogenic shock. A recent randomized trial suggests that the use of intra-aortic balloon pumps does not reduce mortality in patients with ischemic cardiogenic shock.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 8 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 November 2014.
All research outputs
#17,731,702
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,703
of 1,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,808
of 221,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#17
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 221,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.