↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Cybersecurity for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices What Should You Know?

Overview of attention for article published in JACC, February 2018
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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
28 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
95 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
Cybersecurity for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices What Should You Know?
Published in
JACC, February 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.01.023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian Baranchuk, Marwan M. Refaat, Kristen K. Patton, Mina K. Chung, Kousik Krishnan, Valentina Kutyifa, Gaurav Upadhyay, John D. Fisher, Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, American College of Cardiology’s Electrophysiology Section Leadership

Abstract

Medical devices have been targets of hacking for over a decade, and this cybersecurity issue has affected many types of medical devices. Lately, the potential for hacking of cardiac devices (pacemakers and defibrillators) claimed the attention of the media, patients, and health care providers. This is a burgeoning problem that our newly electronically connected world faces. In this paper from the Electrophysiology Section Council, we briefly discuss various aspects of this relatively new threat in light of recent incidents involving the potential for hacking of cardiac devices. We explore the possible risks for the patients and the effect of device reconfiguration in an attempt to thwart cybersecurity threats. We provide an outline of what can be done to improve cybersecurity from the standpoint of the manufacturer, government, professional societies, physician, and patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 50 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 28 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 13%
Engineering 12 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 59 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 278. 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 18 December 2021.
All research outputs
#128,125
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#292
of 16,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,111
of 344,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#9
of 414 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 16,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. 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 344,345 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 414 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 97% of its contemporaries.