| Title |
Nitrates for acute heart failure syndromes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005151.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abel Wakai, Aileen McCabe, Rachel Kidney, Steven C Brooks, Rawle A Seupaul, Deborah B Diercks, Nigel Salter, Gregory J Fermann, Caroline Pospisil |
| Abstract |
Current drug therapy for acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS) consists mainly of diuretics supplemented by vasodilators or inotropes. Nitrates have been used as vasodilators in AHFS for many years and have been shown to improve some aspects of AHFS in some small studies. The aim of this review was to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of nitrate vasodilators in AHFS. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters 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 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 236 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 12% |
| Researcher | 24 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 57 | 24% |
| Unknown | 59 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 114 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 10 | 4% |
| Psychology | 8 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 7% |
| Unknown | 67 | 28% |
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 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,781,696
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,001
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,241
of 197,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#87
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 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 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 197,230 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.