↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Supera self-expanding stents for endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal disease: a review of the clinical evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Supera self-expanding stents for endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal disease: a review of the clinical evidence
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s70229
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kalkidan Bishu, Ehrin J Armstrong

Abstract

Femoropopliteal lesions account for a significant proportion of endovascular interventions for peripheral artery disease in patients with disabling claudication or chronic limb ischemia. The femoropopliteal artery crosses two joint structures (hip and knee joints) and courses through the muscular adductor canal in the thigh, which places the artery at increased biomechanical stress. There is a critical need for stent platforms with a reduced risk of stent fracture while maintaining patency during long-term follow-up. The Supera peripheral stent system has a braided nickel-titanium alloy stent designed to withstand the unique stressors along the course of the femoropopliteal artery. This design may be associated with improved patency in association with reduced stent fracture rates on short- and medium-term follow-up. Further studies, including randomized controlled studies, comparing the Supera interwoven nickel-titanium alloy stent system with other stent platforms and angioplasty alone are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 18 25%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 43%
Engineering 9 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Unspecified 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 20 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 July 2015.
All research outputs
#16,188,873
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#469
of 785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,704
of 277,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#19
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 277,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.