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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
The Efficacy and Safety of the WATCHMAN Device in LAA Occlusion in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Contraindicated to Oral Anticoagulation: A Focused Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.5761/atcs.ra.18-00014 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Nehemiah Majule, Chang Jing, Willfredius Mugishagwe Rutahoile, Felix Samuel Shonyela |
| Abstract |
The standard treatment for stroke risk patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is the use of oral anticoagulants (OACs). However, a substantial number of patients have relative or absolute contraindications to OACs due to concerns of major bleeding risk and other adverse effects while using oral anticoagulation therapy. Recently, occurrences of exclusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA) in patients with contraindication to anticoagulation therapy are widely expanding worldwide, causing major contentious discussions. The LAA is the commonest place of thrombus formation; therefore, the concept of LAA occlusion in reducing stroke and other embolic events in NVAF patients is very important. The current understanding of the available evidence on efficacy and safety of LAA closure (LAAC) with the Watchman device in patients contraindicated to OACs is the major aim of this focused review. After reviewing a significant body of literature, a world experience with no randomized trials, it is suggested that Watchman device implantation is effective and safe in high-risk patients with NVAF contraindicated to OACs therapy. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 23% |
| Unknown | 16 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 49% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 19 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 10 January 2023.
All research outputs
#3,276,246
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
#6
of 428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,153
of 343,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 343,092 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 94% of its contemporaries.