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.
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 |
Is Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenator a New Weapon to Improve Prognosis in Patients With Profound Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Circulation Journal, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1253/circj.cj-15-1398 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pei-Hsun Sung, Chiung-Jen Wu, Hon-Kan Yip |
| Abstract |
Despite advancements in pharmacological therapy and refinement of the tools and technique of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery, patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by profound cardiogenic shock (CS) still have unacceptably high in-hospital mortality and unfavorable long-term outcome. Thus, there is an imminent need of a new and safe treatment modality in the management of AMI complicated by profound CS. Growing evidence suggests that extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO)-supported primary PCI is an effective therapeutic option for saving lives under such conditions. In this review, we describe and interpret the potential role of circulatory mechanical support by ECMO in the setting of AMI complicated by profound CS for improving clinical outcomes. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 55% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,740,505
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Circulation Journal
#1,246
of 2,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,174
of 407,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation Journal
#8
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 407,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.