| Title |
Mechanical circulatory support with Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump or medical treatment in cardiogenic shock—a critical appraisal of current data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Research in Cardiology, March 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00392-019-01458-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bernhard Wernly, Clemens Seelmaier, David Leistner, Barbara E. Stähli, Ingrid Pretsch, Michael Lichtenauer, Christian Jung, Uta C. Hoppe, Ulf Landmesser, Holger Thiele, Alexander Lauten |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 47% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 43% |
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 22 September 2019.
All research outputs
#13,134,253
of 23,152,542 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#442
of 840 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,645
of 351,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#11
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,152,542 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 840 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 351,701 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.