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 |
Advanced Strategies for End-Stage Heart Failure: Combining Regenerative Approaches with LVAD, a New Horizon?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Surgery, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00010 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cheyenne C. S. Tseng, Faiz Z. Ramjankhan, Nicolaas de Jonge, Steven A. J. Chamuleau |
| Abstract |
Despite the improved treatment of cardiovascular diseases, the population with end-stage heart failure (HF) is progressively growing. The scarcity of the gold standard therapy, heart transplantation, demands novel therapeutic approaches. For patients awaiting transplantation, ventricular-assist devices have been of great benefit on survival. To allow explantation of the assist device and obviate heart transplantation, sufficient and durable myocardial recovery is necessary. However, explant rates so far are low. Combining mechanical circulatory support with regenerative therapies such as cell (-based) therapy and biomaterials might give rise to improved long-term results. Although synergistic effects are suggested with mechanical support and stem cell therapy, evidence in both preclinical and clinical setting is lacking. This review focuses on advanced and innovative strategies for the treatment of end-stage HF and furthermore appraises clinical experience with combined strategies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 23% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 51% |
| Engineering | 4 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
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 26 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,405,265
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#919
of 2,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,625
of 264,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,848 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 264,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.