↓ Skip to main content

Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 297)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
39 news outlets
twitter
51 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Therapy
Published in
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jacep.2017.07.017
Authors

Indranill Basu-Ray, Jing Liu, Xiaoming Jia, Michael Gold, Kenneth Ellenbogen, James DiNicolantonio, András Komócsi, András Vorobcsuk, Jitae Kim, Hamid Afshar, Wilson Lam, Nilesh Mathuria, Mehdi Razavi, Abdi Rasekh, Mohammad Saeed

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 33%
Unspecified 3 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Professor 1 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 44%
Engineering 1 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 351. 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 14 January 2018.
All research outputs
#19,410
of 8,940,530 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#1
of 297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,332
of 247,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#1
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,940,530 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 247,325 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 97% of its contemporaries.