↓ Skip to main content

Local versus general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVR) – systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Local versus general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVR) – systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-12-41
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georg M Fröhlich, Alexandra J Lansky, John Webb, Marco Roffi, Stefan Toggweiler, Markus Reinthaler, Duolao Wang, Nevil Hutchinson, Olaf Wendler, David Hildick-Smith, Pascal Meier

Abstract

The hypothesis of this study was that local anesthesia with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is not harmful in comparison to general anesthesia (GA) for patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVR).TAVR is a rapidly spreading treatment option for severe aortic valve stenosis. Traditionally, in most centers, this procedure is done under GA, but more recently procedures with MAC have been reported.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 103 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 23%
Other 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Computer Science 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 21 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 15 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,649,968
of 17,360,236 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,195
of 2,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,635
of 194,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,360,236 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 194,436 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them