↓ Skip to main content

Heart Failure Models: Traditional and Novel Therapy.

Overview of attention for article published in Current Vascular Pharmacology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
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
Heart Failure Models: Traditional and Novel Therapy.
Published in
Current Vascular Pharmacology, January 2015
DOI 10.2174/1570161113666150212151506
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed A Haidara, Abdullah S Assiri, Hanaa Z Yassin, Hania I Ammar, Milan M Obradovic, Esma R Isenovic

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is among the most major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Great progress has been made in the management of CVD which has been influenced by the use of experimental animal models. These models provided information at cellular and molecular levels and allowed the development of treatment strategies. CVD models have been developed in many species, including large animals (e.g. pigs and dogs) and small animals (e.g. rats and mice). Although, no model can solely reproduce clinical HF, simulations of heart failure (HF) are available to experimentally tackle certain queries not easily resolved in humans. Induced HF may also be produced experimentally through myocardial infarction (MI), pressure loading, or volume loading. Volume loading is useful to look at hormone and electrolyte disturbances, while pressure loading models is helpful to study ventricular hypertrophy, cellular imbalance and vascular changes in HF. Coronary heart disease is assessed in MI animal models. In this review we describe various experimental models used to study the pathophysiology of HF.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 8 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 9 30%
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 13 February 2015.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Current Vascular Pharmacology
#232
of 350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,662
of 359,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Vascular Pharmacology
#18
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 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 350 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 359,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.