The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 |
“Guidelines Recommendations on the Treatment of Tricuspid Regurgitation. Where Are We and Where Do We Go With Transcatheter Valve Intervention”
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcvm.2018.00037 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alec Vahanian, Eric Brochet, Jean-Michel Juliard |
| Abstract |
Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is an important clinical problem because it is frequent and carries a poor prognosis when it is left uncorrected. However, there is still a lack of awareness of tricuspid disease in the medical community. The indications for evaluation and surgical interventions in patients with TR were recently updated in the ESC/EACTS guidelines. Transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI), almost exclusively valve repair, is at an early stage of development as only a few hundreds of patients have been treated. The first-in-man valve implantation was very recently performed. The recent ESC/EACTS Guidelines state that "The potential role of transcatheter tricuspid valve treatment in high-risk patients needs to be determined". We shall review here which lessons of interest for TTVI can be learned from the Guidelines as regards evaluation and indications for surgery and try to imagine what could be the place of TTVI in the Guidelines in the future. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 33% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 50% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,601,965
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#3,256
of 6,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,548
of 329,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#31
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,951 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 329,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.