| Title |
Physiological insights of recent clinical diagnostic and therapeutic technologies for cardiovascular diseases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Physiological Sciences, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12576-017-0554-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kenji Shigemi, Soichiro Fuke, Dai Une, Keita Saku, Shuji Shimizu, Toru Kawada, Toshiaki Shishido, Kenji Sunagawa, Masaru Sugimachi |
| Abstract |
Diagnostic and therapeutic methods for cardiovascular diseases continue to be developed in the 21st century. Clinicians should consider the physiological characteristics of the cardiovascular system to ensure successful diagnosis and treatment. In this review, we focus on the roles of cardiovascular physiology in recent diagnostic and therapeutic technologies for cardiovascular diseases. In the first section, we discuss how to evaluate and utilize left ventricular arterial coupling in the clinical settings. In the second section, we review unique characteristics of pulmonary circulation in the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. In the third section, we discuss physiological and anatomical factors associated with graft patency after coronary artery bypass grafting. In the last section, we discuss the usefulness of mechanical ventricular unloading after acute myocardial infarction. Clinical development of diagnostic methods and therapies for cardiovascular diseases should be based on physiological insights of the cardiovascular system. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 26% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 47% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 21% |
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 17 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,810,041
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Physiological Sciences
#200
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,447
of 316,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Physiological Sciences
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 316,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 50% of its contemporaries.