| Title |
Endovascular versus conventional medical treatment for uncomplicated chronic type B aortic dissection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006512.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pinar Ulug, James E McCaslin, Gerard Stansby, Janet T Powell |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 113 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 24 | 21% |
| Unknown | 29 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 7% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 33 | 28% |