↓ Skip to main content

Risk of new acute myocardial infarction hospitalization associated with use of oral and parenteral non-steroidal anti-inflammation drugs (NSAIDs): a case-crossover study of Taiwan's National Health…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Risk of new acute myocardial infarction hospitalization associated with use of oral and parenteral non-steroidal anti-inflammation drugs (NSAIDs): a case-crossover study of Taiwan's National Health Insurance claims database and review of current evidence
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2261-12-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wen-Yi Shau, Hsi-Chieh Chen, Shu-Ting Chen, Hsu-Wen Chou, Chia-Hsuin Chang, Chuei-Wen Kuo, Mei-Shu Lai

Abstract

Previous studies have documented the increased cardiovascular risk associated with the use of some nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Despite this, many old NSAIDs are still prescribed worldwide. Most of the studies to date have been focused on specific oral drugs or limited by the number of cases examined. We studied the risk of new acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospitalization with current use of a variety of oral and parenteral NSAIDs in a nationwide population, and compared our results with existing evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 22%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Other 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 14 28%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 46%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 6 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,760,729
of 24,132,691 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#101
of 1,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,314
of 254,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,132,691 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,777 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 254,370 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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.