↓ Skip to main content

Evolution of endovascular stroke therapies and devices

Overview of attention for article published in Expert Review of Medical Devices, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Evolution of endovascular stroke therapies and devices
Published in
Expert Review of Medical Devices, February 2016
DOI 10.1586/17434440.2016.1143772
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Acute ischemic stroke is caused by occlusion of a cerebral artery, resulting in loss of brain tissue and neurologic deficits. However, a portion of the ischemic brain can be salvaged if blood flow is restored within an appropriate time frame. The past year has seen the publication of five positive randomized controlled trials demonstrating substantial benefit of mechanical thrombectomy in select patients with large vessel cerebrovascular occlusion. This progress is related to several factors, but most importantly, dramatic improvements in speed and rates of recanalization with the latest generation devices. In this article, we review the evolution of endovascular AIS therapies and key design features of the most widely used devices.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 45%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 33%
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 17 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,782,514
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Expert Review of Medical Devices
#480
of 703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,367
of 297,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Review of Medical Devices
#17
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 703 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 297,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 52% of its contemporaries.