↓ Skip to main content

Myocarditis in dogs: etiology, clinical and histopathological features (11 cases: 2007–2013)

Overview of attention for article published in Irish Veterinary Journal, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#27 of 146)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Myocarditis in dogs: etiology, clinical and histopathological features (11 cases: 2007–2013)
Published in
Irish Veterinary Journal, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13620-014-0028-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Izabela Janus, Agnieszka Noszczyk-Nowak, Marcin Nowak, Alicja Cepiel, Rafał Ciaputa, Urszula Pasławska, Piotr Dzięgiel, Karolina Jabłońska

Abstract

Myocarditis is a disease caused by numerous etiological factors and characterized by a non-specific course. The only method allowing for precise characterization of inflammatory changes is the histopathological examination of heart muscle specimens. The study was conducted on heart muscle preparations from 11 dogs with ante-mortem diagnosis of cardiac disease. Animals presented with a poor response to an applied treatment or had suspected sudden cardiac death. The heart specimens were taken post-mortem, preserved and stained with haematoxylin and eosin. Subsequently, the presence and intensity of changes, i.e. inflammatory infiltration, the amount of connective tissue and features of cardiomyocyte degeneration were estimated. The specimens from dogs suspected of having a myocarditis of bacteriological etiology underwent additional bacteriological and immunohistochemical examination.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 9 17%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 25 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 10 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,367,178
of 12,434,754 outputs
Outputs from Irish Veterinary Journal
#27
of 146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,089
of 279,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Irish Veterinary Journal
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,434,754 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 146 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 279,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.