↓ 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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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 11 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 83 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 80 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 23%
Other 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Master 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Computer Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 16 19%

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
#1,095,775
of 13,376,829 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#892
of 2,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,330
of 187,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,376,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 187,515 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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