↓ Skip to main content

Practical Implications of Myocardial Viability Studies

Overview of attention for article published in Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Practical Implications of Myocardial Viability Studies
Published in
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, January 2018
DOI 10.5935/abc.20180051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wilter dos Santos Ker, Thais Helena Peixoto Nunes, Marcelo Souto Nacif, Claudio Tinoco Mesquita

Abstract

Many non-invasive methods, such as imaging tests, have been developed aiming to add a contribution to existing studies in estimating patients' prognosis after myocardial injury. This prognosis is proportional to myocardial viability, which is evaluated in coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction patients only. While myocardial viability represents the likelihood of a dysfunctional muscle (resulting from decreased oxygen supply for coronary artery obstruction), hibernation represents post-interventional functional recovery itself. This article proposes a review of pathophysiological basis of viability, diagnostic methods, prognosis and future perspectives of myocardial viability. An electronic bibliographic search for articles was performed in PubMed, Lilacs, Cochrane and Scielo databases, according to pre-established criteria. The studies showed the ability of many imaging techniques in detecting viable tissues in dysfunctional areas of left ventricle resulting from coronary artery injuries. These techniques can identify patients who may benefit from myocardial revascularization and indicate the most appropriate treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 14%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 51%
Engineering 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 9 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,762,912
of 13,810,416 outputs
Outputs from Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
#132
of 620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,445
of 269,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,810,416 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 620 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 269,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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