| Title |
ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2016 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.034 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Manesh R. Patel, John H. Calhoon, Gregory J. Dehmer, James Aaron Grantham, Thomas M. Maddox, David J. Maron, Peter K. Smith |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 6 | 15% |
| United States | 4 | 10% |
| Argentina | 3 | 8% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 5% |
| Colombia | 2 | 5% |
| Mexico | 2 | 5% |
| Panama | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 31 | 79% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
| Scientists | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 104 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 17% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 21% |
| Unknown | 21 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 8% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 29 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#764,631
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#1,919
of 16,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,941
of 422,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#58
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,740 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 422,597 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.