↓ Skip to main content

Antibody‐Mediated Rejection in Heart Transplantation: Case Presentation with a Review of Current International Guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Transplantation, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 105)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
20 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.
Article details
Title
Antibody‐Mediated Rejection in Heart Transplantation: Case Presentation with a Review of Current International Guidelines
Published in
Journal of Transplantation, December 2011
DOI 10.1155/2011/351950
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) (humoral rejection) of cardiac allografts remains difficult to diagnose and treat. Interest in AMR of cardiac allografts has increased over the last decade as it has become apparent that untreated humoral rejection threatens graft and patient survival. An international and multidisciplinary consensus group has formulated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AMR and established that identification of circulating or donor-specific antibodies is not required and that asymptomatic AMR, that is, biopsy-proven AMR without cardiac dysfunction is a real entity with worsened prognosis. Strict criteria for the diagnosis of cardiac AMR have not been firmly established, although the diagnosis relies heavily on tissue pathological findings. Therapy remains largely empirical. We review an unfortunate experience with one of our patients and summarize recommended criteria for the diagnosis of AMR and potential treatment schemes with a focus on current limitations and the need for future research and innovation.

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.
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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 15%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 4 20%
Unknown 6 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Unknown 8 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 November 2020.
All research outputs
#10,270,441
of 30,642,614 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Transplantation
#24
of 105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,574
of 275,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Transplantation
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,642,614 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 105 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 275,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.