↓ Skip to main content

Remote Ischemic Conditioning: From Bench to Bedside

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
158 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
Remote Ischemic Conditioning: From Bench to Bedside
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2012.00027
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shiang Yong Lim, Derek John Hausenloy

Abstract

Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) is a therapeutic strategy for protecting organs or tissue against the detrimental effects of acute ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI). It describes an endogenous phenomenon in which the application of one or more brief cycles of non-lethal ischemia and reperfusion to an organ or tissue protects a remote organ or tissue from a sustained episode of lethal IRI. Although RIC protection was first demonstrated to protect the heart against acute myocardial infarction, its beneficial effects are also seen in other organs (lung, liver, kidney, intestine, brain) and tissues (skeletal muscle) subjected to acute IRI. The recent discovery that RIC can be induced non-invasively by simply inflating and deflating a standard blood pressure cuff placed on the upper arm or leg, has facilitated its translation into the clinical setting, where it has been reported to be beneficial in a variety of cardiac scenarios. In this review article we provide an overview of RIC, the potential underlying mechanisms, and its potential as a novel therapeutic strategy for protecting the heart and other organs from acute IRI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 155 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 16%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Student > Master 21 13%
Other 9 6%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 28 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 9%
Sports and Recreations 15 9%
Neuroscience 11 7%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 37 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 01 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,933,038
of 24,766,831 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,060
of 15,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,906
of 254,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#19
of 308 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,766,831 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 254,095 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 308 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 94% of its contemporaries.