↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Cardiac crossroads: deciding between mechanical or bioprosthetic heart valve replacement

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
Title
Cardiac crossroads: deciding between mechanical or bioprosthetic heart valve replacement
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, February 2011
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s16420
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tillquist, Tillquist, Tom Maddox

Abstract

Nearly 15 million people in the United States suffer from either aortic or mitral valvular disease. For patients with severe and symptomatic valvular heart disease, valve replacement surgery improves morbidity and mortality outcomes. In 2009, 90,000 valve replacement surgeries were performed in the United States. This review evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of mechanical and bioprosthetic prosthetic heart valves as well as the factors for consideration in deciding the appropriate valve type for an individual patient. Although many caveats exist, the general recommendation is for patients younger than 60 to 65 years to receive mechanical valves due to the valve's longer durability and for patients older than 60 to 65 years to receive a bioprosthetic valve to avoid complications with anticoagulants. Situations that warrant special consideration include patient co-morbidities, the need for anticoagulation, and the potential for pregnancy. Once these characteristics have been considered, patients' values, anxieties, and expectations for their lifestyle and quality of life should be incorporated into final valve selection. Decision aids can be useful in integrating preferences in the valve decision. Finally, future directions in valve technology, anticoagulation, and medical decision-making are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Italy 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Iraq 1 <1%
Unknown 152 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 47 29%
Student > Master 29 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Researcher 14 9%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 15 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 31%
Engineering 49 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 20 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 October 2021.
All research outputs
#4,673,735
of 19,486,479 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#273
of 1,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,616
of 169,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#9
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,486,479 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 169,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 74% of its contemporaries.