↓ Skip to main content

2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways

Overview of attention for article published in JACC, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
302 X users
facebook
10 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways
Published in
JACC, October 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.09.019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick T. O'Gara, Paul A. Grayburn, Vinay Badhwar, Luis C. Afonso, John D. Carroll, Sammy Elmariah, Aaron P. Kithcart, Rick A. Nishimura, Thomas J. Ryan, Allan Schwartz, Lynne Warner Stevenson

Abstract

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is a complex valve lesion that can pose significant management challenges for the cardiovascular clinician. This Expert Consensus Document emphasizes that recognition of MR should prompt an assessment of its etiology, mechanism, and severity, as well as indications for treatment. A structured approach to evaluation based on clinical findings, precise echocardiographic imaging, and when necessary, adjunctive testing, can help clarify decision making. Treatment goals include timely intervention by an experienced heart team to prevent left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, reduced quality of life, and premature death.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 302 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 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 215 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 18%
Other 26 12%
Student > Postgraduate 19 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 5%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 64 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 123 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Engineering 3 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 75 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 256. 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 27 February 2024.
All research outputs
#144,882
of 25,563,770 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#324
of 16,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,999
of 337,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#13
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,563,770 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,765 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 337,112 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.