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 |
Differential Effects of Nonselective Versus Selective β-Blockers on Cardiac Sympathetic Activity and Hemostasis in Patients with Heart Failure
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Medicine, August 2013
|
DOI | 10.2967/jnumed.113.120477 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Olav R. de Peuter, Hein J. Verberne, Wouter E. Kok, Bas van den Bogaard, Marianna C. Schaap, Rienk Nieuwland, Joost C.M. Meijers, G. Aernout Somsen, Ad Bakx, Pieter W. Kamphuisen |
Abstract |
Carvedilol, a nonselective β-blocker, may be more effective than the selective β-blocker metoprolol in reducing the risk of thromboembolic events in heart failure. The aim of this study was, first, to assess whether there is a differential response in cardiac sympathetic activity by (123)I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine ((123)I-MIBG) imaging when either β-blocker is used. Second, we assessed whether that response correlates with levels of various serum factors that serve as markers for coagulability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Japan | 2 | 5% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 36 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 7 | 18% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 10% |
Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
Other | 3 | 8% |
Other | 7 | 18% |
Unknown | 9 | 23% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 51% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 11 | 28% |
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 24 August 2013.
All research outputs
#20,200,843
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
#3,416
of 4,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,533
of 198,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
#41
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 198,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.