| Title |
Challenges in cardiac device innovation: is neuroimaging an appropriate endpoint? Consensus from the 2013 Yale-UCL Cardiac Device Innovation Summit
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-11-257 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie M Meller, Andreas Baumbach, Szilard Voros, Michael Mullen, Alexandra J Lansky |
| Abstract |
Neurological events associated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation are major contributors to morbidity and mortality. Choosing an appropriate endpoint to determine neuroprotection device efficacy is a key difficulty inhibiting the translation of the innovation from the laboratory to the bedside. Cost and sample size limitations inhibit the feasibility of using the rate of clinical (such as stroke or other cerebral) events as the primary efficacy endpoint. This paper focuses on consensus opinions from the 2013 Yale-University College London (UCL) Device Innovation Summit. |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 38 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 48% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |
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 11 December 2013.
All research outputs
#20,213,623
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,311
of 3,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,066
of 307,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#52
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 307,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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.