You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
High Prevalence of Respiratory Ciliary Dysfunction in Congenital Heart Disease Patients With Heterotaxy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Circulation, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1161/circulationaha.111.079780 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nader Nakhleh, Richard Francis, Rachel A. Giese, Xin Tian, You Li, Maimoona A. Zariwala, Hisato Yagi, Omar Khalifa, Safina Kureshi, Bishwanath Chatterjee, Steven L. Sabol, Matthew Swisher, Patricia S. Connelly, Mathew P. Daniels, Ashok Srinivasan, Karen Kuehl, Nadav Kravitz, Kimberlie Burns, Iman Sami, Heymut Omran, Michael Barmada, Kenneth Olivier, Kunal K. Chawla, Margaret Leigh, Richard Jonas, Michael Knowles, Linda Leatherbury, Cecilia W. Lo |
| Abstract |
Patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) and heterotaxy show high postsurgical morbidity/mortality, with some developing respiratory complications. Although this finding is often attributed to the CHD, airway clearance and left-right patterning both require motile cilia function. Thus, airway ciliary dysfunction (CD) similar to that of primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) may contribute to increased respiratory complications in heterotaxy patients. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Argentina | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 12% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Professor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 22% |
| Unknown | 26 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 42% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | <1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 27 | 25% |
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 11 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,600,553
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Circulation
#17,393
of 21,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,705
of 174,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation
#127
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 174,048 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 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.