The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 |
Efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure compared with oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-matched studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, September 2023
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1212161 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luca Franchin, Francesco Piroli, Pierluigi Demola, Francesca Mantovani, Mario Iannaccone, Roberto Manfredi, Fabrizio D’Ascenzo, Federico Fortuni, Fabrizio Ugo, Francesco Meucci, Alessandro Navazio, Giacomo Boccuzzi |
| Abstract |
BackgroundsTwo recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the PROTECT-AF and the PREVAIL, showed that in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is comparable to oral anticoagulants (OAC) in the prevention of stroke and could also possibly reduce mortality. Nevertheless, this net clinical benefit was not confirmed in the most recent RCT comparing LAAC vs. OAC, the PRAGUE-17 trial.Aimaim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAAC compared with OAC among available high-quality studies.MethodsA systematic search of electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Embase and the Cochrane Library) was performed to identify eligible RCTs and observational studies with propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Outcomes of interest were the occurrence of cardiovascular death (CVD), all-cause death, all-type stroke, and major bleedings.ResultsA total of 3 RCTs and 7 PMS studies involving 25,700 patients were identified. 12,961 patients received LAAC while 12,739 received OAC therapy. After a median follow-up of 2.6 years (IQR 2–4.4), patients who received LAAC had lower risk of CVD (RR = 0.62; 95%CI, 0.51–0.74, I2 = 0%), all-cause death (RR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57–0.78, I2 68%) and major bleedings (RR = 0.68; 95%CI, 0.48–0.95 I2 = 87%) compared with patients on OAC. No difference was found between the two groups regarding strokes incidence (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77–1.15, I2 = 0%).ConclusionsAccording to this meta-analysis, LAAC has comparable efficacy in the prevention of stroke compared with OAC and a reduced risk of major bleedings, all-cause death and CVD that may be even larger with longer follow-up.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=269768, identifier CRD42021269768. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 17% |
| Italy | 1 | 17% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 29% |
| Researcher | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 14% |
| Engineering | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,648,729
of 24,749,767 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#1,304
of 8,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,228
of 292,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#30
of 461 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,749,767 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,657 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 292,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 461 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 93% of its contemporaries.