| Title |
Cost-Effectiveness of Revascularization Strategies The ASCERT Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.078 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zugui Zhang, Paul Kolm, Maria V. Grau-Sepulveda, Angelo Ponirakis, Sean M. O’Brien, Lloyd W. Klein, Richard E. Shaw, Charles McKay, David M. Shahian, Frederick L. Grover, John E. Mayer, Kirk N. Garratt, Mark Hlatky, Fred H. Edwards, William S. Weintraub |
| Abstract |
ASCERT (American College of Cardiology Foundation and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Collaboration on the Comparative Effectiveness of Revascularization Strategies) was a large observational study designed to compare the long-term effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat coronary artery disease (CAD) over 4 to 5 years. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| India | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 18% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 22% |
| Unknown | 16 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 13% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 January 2022.
All research outputs
#6,389,780
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#8,607
of 16,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,348
of 361,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#82
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. 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 361,493 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 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 54% of its contemporaries.