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 collaterals and risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-10-62 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pascal Meier, Andreas Indermuehle, Bertram Pitt, Tobias Traupe, Stefano F de Marchi, Tom Crake, Guido Knapp, Alexandra J Lansky, Christian Seiler |
| Abstract |
The benefit of the coronary collateral circulation (natural bypass network) on survival is well established. However, data derived from smaller studies indicates that coronary collaterals may increase the risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was to explore the impact of the collateral circulation on the risk for restenosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 67% |
| Egypt | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 20% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 52% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 23 October 2012.
All research outputs
#2,392,473
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,541
of 3,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,043
of 164,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#27
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 164,033 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 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.