| Title |
Stroke Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation A Stakeholder Perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohamad Alkhouli, Peter A. Noseworthy, Charanjit S. Rihal, David R. Holmes |
| Abstract |
Ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The growing epidemic of atrial fibrillation worldwide has raised concerns about the dire need for effective stroke prevention systems in these patients. Fortunately, the last decade has witnessed a plethora of data on novel stroke prevention methods in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, optimal selection and effective implementation of these preventative strategies require an integrative approach that takes into account not only the available clinical data but also the perspective of each of the stakeholders involved (patient, physician, and society). The goal of this review was to discuss the contemporary issues surrounding stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation from the perspective of these 3 major stakeholders. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 14% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 10% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Colombia | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 12% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 31 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 September 2020.
All research outputs
#3,005,989
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#5,616
of 16,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,699
of 342,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#127
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 342,877 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.