↓ Skip to main content

New Approaches to Coronary Heart Disease

Overview of attention for article published in BioDrugs, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
New Approaches to Coronary Heart Disease
Published in
BioDrugs, August 2012
DOI 10.2165/00063030-199911050-00002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas J. Stegmann

Abstract

Currently available approaches for treating human coronary heart disease aim to relieve symptoms and the risk of myocardial infarction by reducing myocardial oxygen demand (drugs), preventing further disease progression (drugs), restoring coronary blood flow either pharmacologically (thrombolysis) or mechanically (angioplasty), or bypassing the stenotic lesions and obstructed coronary artery segments (surgery). Direct gene therapy, as well as gene-derived therapy, especially by angiogenic growth factors, is emerging as a potential new treatment for cardiovascular disease. After extensive experimental research on angiogenic growth factors, the first clinical studies on patients with coronary heart disease or peripheral vascular lesions are being performed. The polypeptides fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor seem to be effective in initiating neovascularisation (neo-angiogenesis) in hypoxic or ischaemic tissues. The first clinical study on patients with coronary heart disease treated by local injection of FGF-1 into the compromised underperfused myocardial tissue showed a 3-fold increase of capillary density mediated by the growth factor. Angiogenic therapy of the human myocardium introduces a new modality of treatment for coronary heart disease in terms of regulation of blood vessel growth. Beyond drug therapy, angioplasty and bypass surgery, this therapy may evolve to be a fourth principle of treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Engineering 1 13%
Unknown 3 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 April 2013.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BioDrugs
#314
of 746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,786
of 174,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioDrugs
#111
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 174,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.