↓ Skip to main content

Revascularisation of the left subclavian artery for thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Revascularisation of the left subclavian artery for thoracic endovascular aortic repair
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011738.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shahin Hajibandeh, Shahab Hajibandeh, Stavros A Antoniou, Francesco Torella, George A Antoniou

Abstract

Controversy exists as to whether revascularisation of the left subclavian artery (LSA) confers improved outcomes in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Even though preemptive revascularisation of the LSA has theoretical advantages, including a reduced risk of ischaemic damage to vital organs, such as the brain and the spinal cord, it is not without risks. Current practice guidelines recommend routine revascularisation of the LSA in patients undergoing elective TEVAR where achievement of a proximal seal necessitates coverage of the LSA, and in patients who have an anatomy that compromises perfusion to critical organs. However, this recommendation was based on very low-quality evidence. To assess the comparative efficacy of routine LSA revascularisation versus either selective or no revascularisation in patients with descending thoracic aortic disease undergoing TEVAR with coverage of the LSA origin. The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (June 2015). In addition, the TSC searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5)).Trials databases were also searched (June 2015). We had planned to consider all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine revascularisation of the LSA with selective or no revascularisation, in patients undergoing TEVAR. Two review authors independently assessed the title and abstract of articles identified through literature searches. An independent third review author was consulted in the event of disagreement. We had planned for two review authors to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias of identified trials using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We did not identify any RCTs relevant to our review topic. Therefore, no quantitative analysis was conducted. High quality RCT evidence for or against routine or selective revascularisation of the LSA in TEVAR is not currently available. It is not possible to draw conclusions with regard to the optimal management of LSA coverage in TEVAR, and whether routine revascularisation, which was defined as the intervention of interest in our review, confers beneficial effects, as indicated by reduced mortality, cerebrovascular events, and spinal cord ischaemia. This review highlights the need for continued research to provide RCT evidence and define the role of LSA revascularisation in the context of TEVAR with coverage of the LSA.

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 28%
Student > Bachelor 7 24%
Other 4 14%
Unspecified 4 14%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 55%
Unspecified 7 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,073,117
of 13,176,579 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,008
of 10,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,000
of 263,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#142
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,176,579 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 263,207 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.