↓ Skip to main content

Clinical investigation of transradial access for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Clinical investigation of transradial access for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, August 2013
DOI 10.2147/cia.s50939
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xuguang Qin, Weiguo Xiong, Li Wang, Enben Guan, Chunpeng Lu

Abstract

Use of intensive anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) potentially increases the risk of bleeding complications during percutaneous coronary intervention via the transfemoral route. Recently, the transradial access has been intensively employed as an alternative means for diagnostic and interventional procedures. A low incidence of vascular access site bleeding complications suggests that the transradial access is a safe alternative to the transfemoral technique in patients with AMI. The safety and efficacy of transradial access for emergent percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with AMI has not been investigated in the People's Republic of China.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 26%
Other 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Master 1 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 47%
Engineering 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 December 2013.
All research outputs
#15,739,010
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,051
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,058
of 210,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#30
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 210,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.