| Title |
Perspectives on the 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12265-015-9632-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesco Costa, Sara Ariotti, Marco Valgimigli, Philippe Kolh, Stephan Windecker, on behalf of the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) |
| Abstract |
The joint European Society of Cardiology and European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (ESC/EACTS) guidelines on myocardial revascularization collect and summarize the evidence regarding decision-making, diagnostics, and therapeutics in various clinical scenarios of coronary artery disease, including elective, urgent, and emergency settings. The 2014 document updates and extends the effort started in 2010, year of the first edition of these guidelines. Importantly, this latest edition provides a systematic review of all randomized clinical trials performed since 1980, comparing different strategies of myocardial revascularization, including coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), balloon angioplasty, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare-metal stents (BMS) and first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). This review aims to highlight the most relevant novelties introduced by the 2014 edition of the ESC/EACTS myocardial revascularization guidelines as compared with the previous edition and to describe similarities and differences with the American societies' guidelines. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 20 | 36% |
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 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,937,691
of 24,135,931 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
#459
of 614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,419
of 270,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,135,931 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 270,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.