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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Northern Territory Perspectives on Heart Failure with Comorbidities – Understanding Trial Validity and Exploring Collaborative Opportunities to Broaden the Evidence Base
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Heart, Lung & Circulation, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.hlc.2014.12.007 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P. Iyngkaran, W. Majoni, A. Cass, Prashanthan Sanders, C. Ronco, S. Brady, N. Kangaharan, M. Ilton, D.L. Hare, M.C. Thomas |
| Abstract |
Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) is an ambulatory care sensitive condition, associated with significant morbidity and mortality, rarely with cure. Outpatient based pharmacological management represents the main and most important aspect of care, and is usually lifelong. This narrative styled opinion review looks at the pharmacological agents recommended in the guidelines in context of the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia. We explore the concept of validity, a term used to describe the basis of standardising a particular trial or study and the population to which it is applicable. We aim to highlight the problems of the current guidelines based approach. We also present alternatives that could utilise the core principles from major trials, while incorporating regional considerations, which could benefit clients living in the NT and remote Australia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Psychology | 6 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 February 2015.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Heart, Lung & Circulation
#1,177
of 1,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,003
of 359,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart, Lung & Circulation
#23
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 359,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.