You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
5-year outcomes in the FRISC-II randomised trial of an invasive versus a non-invasive strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a follow-up study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet, September 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69416-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bo Lagerqvist, Steen Husted, Fredrik Kontny, Elisabeth Ståhle, Eva Swahn, Lars Wallentin, The Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease Investigators |
| Abstract |
The FRISC-II invasive trial compared an early invasive with a non-invasive strategy in terms of death and myocardial infarction in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. We present 5-year follow-up results, overall and in subgroups based on recommended risk stratification criteria. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 2 | 2% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 15% |
| Researcher | 16 | 13% |
| Other | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 11% |
| Other | 29 | 23% |
| Unknown | 16 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 86 | 69% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 November 2020.
All research outputs
#4,835,465
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#19,693
of 42,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,035
of 89,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#72
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 67.9. 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 89,587 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 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 53% of its contemporaries.