↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Current perspectives in percutaneous atrial septal defect closure devices

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Current perspectives in percutaneous atrial septal defect closure devices
Published in
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/mder.s49368
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naylin Bissessor

Abstract

In the last decade, percutaneous atrial septal defect (ASD) closure has become the treatment of choice in most clinical presentations of ASD. Percutaneous ASD closure has established procedural safety through operator experience and improved device structure and deliverability. There have also been advances in diagnostic capabilities. Devices have evolved from large bulky meshes to repositionable, minimal residual mesh content that easily endothelializes and conforms well to surrounding structures. Biodegradable technology has been introduced and will be closely watched as a future option. The evolution of ASD closure device usage in the last four decades incorporates development that minimizes a wide range of serious side effects that have been reported over the years. Complications reported in the literature include thrombus formation, air embolization, device embolization, erosions, residual shunts, and nickel hypersensitivity. Modern devices have intermediate to long term data with outcomes that have been favorable. Devices are available in multiple sizes with improved delivery mechanisms to recapture, reposition, and safely close simple and complex ASDs amenable to percutaneous closure. In this review, commonly used devices and deployment procedures are discussed together with a look at devices that show promise for the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Postgraduate 8 14%
Other 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 49%
Engineering 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Unspecified 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 14 24%
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 16 July 2015.
All research outputs
#16,106,935
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#173
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,470
of 277,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 277,768 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 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.