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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Flow-Diversion Panacea or Poison?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2014.00021 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mario Zanaty, Nohra Chalouhi, Stavropoula I. Tjoumakaris, Robert H. Rosenwasser, L. Fernando Gonzalez, Pascal Jabbour |
| Abstract |
Endovascular therapy is now the treatment of choice for intracranial aneurysms (IAs) for its efficacy and safety profile. The use of flow diversion (FD) has recently expanded to cover many types of IAs in various locations. Some institutions even attempt FD as first line treatment for unruptured IAs. The most widely used devices are the pipeline embolization device (PED), the SILK flow diverter (SFD), the flow redirection endoluminal device (FRED), and Surpass. Many questions were raised regarding the long-term complications, the optimal regimen of dual antiplatelet therapy, and the durability of treatment effect. We reviewed the literature to address these questions as well as other concerns on FD when treating IAs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 16% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 20% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 59% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 2% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 March 2016.
All research outputs
#17,713,929
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,003
of 11,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,784
of 305,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#18
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,662 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 305,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.