| Title |
Guidelines in review: Comparison of ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable coronary artery disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-017-1055-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jubin Joseph, Alejandro Velasco, Fadi G Hage, Eliana Reyes |
| Abstract |
In 2012, the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines jointly with the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons produced a set of recommendations intended to assist physicians in the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Two years later, a focused update on the 2012 guidelines was published. A year before this update, The Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) issued a guideline on the management of stable CAD. This document brings together European and American recommendations that include the use of stress testing and non-invasive imaging for the diagnosis and management of patients with known or suspected stable CAD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 3 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 17% |
| Colombia | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 28 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 40% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 47% |
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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,283,318
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#840
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,461
of 323,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#9
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 323,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.