↓ Skip to main content

Cardiopulmonary bypass: development of John Gibbon's heart-lung machine

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 454)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Cardiopulmonary bypass: development of John Gibbon's heart-lung machine
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, January 2015
DOI 10.5935/1678-9741.20150021
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To provide a brief review of the development of cardiopulmonary bypass. A review of the literature on the development of extracorporeal circulation techniques, their essential role in cardiovascular surgery, and the complications associated with their use, including hemolysis and inflammation. The advancement of extracorporeal circulation techniques has played an essential role in minimizing the complications of cardiopulmonary bypass, which can range from various degrees of tissue injury to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. Investigators have long researched the ways in which cardiopulmonary bypass may insult the human body. Potential solutions arose and laid the groundwork for development of safer postoperative care strategies. Steady progress has been made in cardiopulmonary bypass in the decades since it was first conceived of by Gibbon. Despite the constant evolution of cardiopulmonary bypass techniques and attempts to minimize their complications, it is still essential that clinicians respect the particularities of each patient's physiological function.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 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 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 30 48%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 32%
Engineering 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 30 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 January 2026.
All research outputs
#6,100,427
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery
#22
of 454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,505
of 410,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery
#1
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 454 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 410,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.