↓ Skip to main content

Rapid Dilatation of False Lumen in a Patient With Chronic Aortic Dissection Under Suspicion of Anticoagulation Therapy-Induced Recanalization

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation Reports, August 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions
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.
Title
Rapid Dilatation of False Lumen in a Patient With Chronic Aortic Dissection Under Suspicion of Anticoagulation Therapy-Induced Recanalization
Published in
Circulation Reports, August 2020
DOI 10.1253/circrep.cr-20-0075
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shintaro Yamada, Eriko Hasumi, Katsuhito Fujiu, Haruo Yamauchi, Issei Komuro

X Demographics

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.
Attention Score in Context

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 10 September 2020.
All research outputs
#20,669,432
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from Circulation Reports
#218
of 284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#324,981
of 424,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation Reports
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 284 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 424,476 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.