↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the effects of long-term pimobendan and benazepril administration in normal cats

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Comparison of the effects of long-term pimobendan and benazepril administration in normal cats
Published in
Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, March 2016
DOI 10.1292/jvms.14-0673
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuichi MIYAGAWA, Noboru MACHIDA, TODA Noriko, Yoshinori TOMINAGA, Naoyuki TAKEMURA

Abstract

Pimobendan (PIMO) can cause adverse effects, such as mitral valve degeneration, in dogs; however, it is unclear whether these effects occur in cats. Therefore, we aimed to determine whether PIMO or benazepril produces adverse cardiac effects in healthy cats. This was a blinded, randomized, prospective parallel study. Twelve cats were randomly divided into two groups of six cats, namely, an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor group that received benazepril and a PIMO group. Cats were administered their respective treatments for 506 days, and we evaluated cardiac parameters, blood biochemistry and glomerular filtration rates during that time. At the end of the trial, the cats were euthanized, and histopathological examinations were performed by a pathologist who was blinded to the treatment groups. No significant changes were observed in any of the parameters measured in either of the groups. In particular, no significant cardiac lesions were observed in either of the groups. In healthy cats, neither PIMO nor benazepril appears to cause cardiac lesions, but future studies are needed to examine the effects of PIMO in cats with heart disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 21%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 12%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 19 58%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Veterinary Medical Science
#1,596
of 3,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,554
of 314,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Veterinary Medical Science
#35
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,546 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 314,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.