| Title |
Evaluating the benefits of home-based management of atrial fibrillation: current perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pragmatic and Observational Research, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/por.s96670 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Azfar B Sheikh, Jamie R Felzer, Abdullah Bin Munir, Daniel P Morin, Carl J Lavie |
| Abstract |
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide, leading to an extensive public health and economic burden. The increasing incidence and prevalence of AF is due to the advancing age of the population, structural heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and thyroid disease. The majority of costs associated with AF have been attributed to the cost of hospitalization. In order to minimize costs and decrease hospitalizations, counseling on modifiable risk factors contributing to AF has been strongly emphasized. With the release of novel oral anticoagulants bypassing the need for anticoagulant bridging or laboratory monitoring, post-discharge nurse-led home intervention, and novel methods of heart rate monitoring, home-based AF management has reached a new level of ease and sophistication. In this review, we aimed to review modifiable risk factors for AF and various methods of home-based management of AF, along with their benefits. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 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 Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 6% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 43% |
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 14 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,562,823
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Pragmatic and Observational Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,141
of 333,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pragmatic and Observational Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.0. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 333,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them