↓ Skip to main content

Cardiac tachyarrhythmias and patient values and preferences for their management: the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) consensus document endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia…

Overview of attention for article published in Europace, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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
Cardiac tachyarrhythmias and patient values and preferences for their management: the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) consensus document endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulación Cardíaca y Electrofisiología (SOLEACE)
Published in
Europace, June 2015
DOI 10.1093/europace/euv233
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deirdre A. Lane, Luis Aguinaga, Carina Blomström-Lundqvist, Giuseppe Boriani, Gheorge-Andrei Dan, Mellanie True Hills, Elaine M. Hylek, Stephen A. LaHaye, Gregory Y.H. Lip, Trudie Lobban, John Mandrola, Pamela J. McCabe, Susanne S. Pedersen, Ron Pisters, Simon Stewart, Kathryn Wood, Tatjana S. Potpara, Document Reviewers, Bulent Gorenek, Jamie Beth Conti, Roberto Keegan, Suzannah Power, Jeroen Hendriks, Philippe Ritter, Hugh Calkins, Francesco Violi, Jodie Hurwitz

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 147 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 13%
Student > Master 20 13%
Other 15 10%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 40 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Psychology 7 5%
Engineering 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 51 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 13 December 2017.
All research outputs
#857,360
of 26,150,873 outputs
Outputs from Europace
#115
of 3,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,631
of 279,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Europace
#1
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,150,873 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,178 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 279,972 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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.