| Title |
Local versus general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVR) – systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-12-41 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Georg M Fröhlich, Alexandra J Lansky, John Webb, Marco Roffi, Stefan Toggweiler, Markus Reinthaler, Duolao Wang, Nevil Hutchinson, Olaf Wendler, David Hildick-Smith, Pascal Meier |
| Abstract |
The hypothesis of this study was that local anesthesia with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is not harmful in comparison to general anesthesia (GA) for patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVR).TAVR is a rapidly spreading treatment option for severe aortic valve stenosis. Traditionally, in most centers, this procedure is done under GA, but more recently procedures with MAC have been reported. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
| Peru | 1 | 13% |
| Japan | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 124 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 21% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 20% |
| Unknown | 28 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 33 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,557,734
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,598
of 3,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,851
of 220,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#28
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 220,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.