↓ Skip to main content

Saudi guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension: 2014 updates

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Thoracic Medicine, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
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.
Title
Saudi guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension: 2014 updates
Published in
Annals of Thoracic Medicine, January 2014
DOI 10.4103/1817-1737.134006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Majdy M Idrees, Sarfraz Saleemi, M Ali Azem, Saleh Aldammas, Manal Alhazmi, Javid Khan, Abdulgafour Gari, Maha Aldabbagh, Husam Sakkijha, Abdulla Aldalaan, Khalid Alnajashi, Waleed Alhabeeb, Imran Nizami, Amjad Kouatli, May Chehab, Omar Tamimi, Hanaa Banjar, Tarek Kashour, Antonio Lopes, Omar Minai, Paul Hassoun, Qadar Pasha, Eckhard Mayer, Ghazwan Butrous, Sastry Bhagavathula, Stefano Ghio, John Swiston, Adel Boueiz, Adriano Tonelli, Robert D Levy, Marius Hoeper, Rober D Levy

Abstract

The Saudi Association for Pulmonary Hypertension (previously called Saudi Advisory Group for Pulmonary Hypertension) has published the first Saudi Guidelines on Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension back in 2008.[1] That guideline was very detailed and extensive and reviewed most aspects of pulmonary hypertension (PH). One of the disadvantages of such detailed guidelines is the difficulty that some of the readers who just want to get a quick guidance or looking for a specific piece of information might face. All efforts were made to develop this guideline in an easy-to-read form, making it very handy and helpful to clinicians dealing with PH patients to select the best management strategies for the typical patient suffering from a specific condition. This Guideline was designed to provide recommendations for problems frequently encountered by practicing clinicians involved in management of PH. This publication targets mainly adult and pediatric PH-treating physicians, but can also be used by other physicians interested in PH.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 38%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 18 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 October 2014.
All research outputs
#14,387,928
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Thoracic Medicine
#186
of 373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,341
of 319,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Thoracic Medicine
#18
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 319,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.