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 |
Coronary versus carotid blood flow and coronary perfusion pressure in a pig model of prolonged cardiac arrest treated by different modes of venoarterial ECMO and intraaortic balloon counterpulsation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc11254 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jan Bělohlávek, Mikuláš Mlček, Michal Huptych, Tomáš Svoboda, Štěpán Havránek, Petr Ošt'ádal, Tomáš Bouček, Tomáš Kovárník, František Mlejnský, Vratislav Mrázek, Marek Bělohlávek, Michael Aschermann, Aleš Linhart, Otomar Kittnar |
| Abstract |
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly used in cardiac arrest (CA). Adequacy of carotid and coronary blood flows (CaBF, CoBF) and coronary perfusion pressure (CoPP) in ECMO treated CA is not well established. This study compares femoro-femoral (FF) to femoro-subclavian (FS) ECMO and intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) contribution based on CaBF, CoBF, CoPP, myocardial and brain oxygenation in experimental CA managed by ECMO. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 14% |
| Italy | 2 | 14% |
| United States | 2 | 14% |
| Belgium | 1 | 7% |
| Thailand | 1 | 7% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Japan | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 36% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 16% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 25% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 58% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 16 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 05 September 2019.
All research outputs
#4,261,992
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,037
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,592
of 170,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#19
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 170,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.