| Title |
Everolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Research in Cardiology, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00392-012-0414-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antoinette de Waha, Salvatore Cassese, Duk-Woo Park, Francesco Burzotta, Robert A. Byrne, Tomohisa Tada, Lamin A. King, Seung-Jung Park, Albert Schömig, Adnan Kastrati |
| Abstract |
Everolimus-eluting stents (EES; Xience V) are among the most commonly used newer generation drug-eluting stents in clinical practice and have clearly proven superiority over paclitaxel-eluting stents. Nevertheless, the relative merits of EES against the previous gold-standard sirolimus-eluting stent (SES; Cypher) have been less extensively assessed. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of EES with SES in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 22% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 41% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
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 01 February 2014.
All research outputs
#16,745,862
of 24,631,014 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#604
of 921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,676
of 161,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,631,014 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 161,953 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.