↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The limits of oral therapy in pulmonary arterial hypertension management

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
The limits of oral therapy in pulmonary arterial hypertension management
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, November 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s49026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qian-Qian Liu, Zhi-Cheng Jing

Abstract

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a devastating disease in which remodeling of the small pulmonary arteries leads to a progressive increase in pulmonary vascular resistance and right-sided heart failure. Over the past decade, new treatments for PAH, such as the use of ERAs, PDE-5 inhibitors and prostacyclin analogs, have brought about dramatic improvements in clinical outcomes. Epoprostenol infusion therapy has been shown to improve hemodynamics, functional status, and survival, and it remains the gold standard for treatment of patients with severe PAH. Many agents, approved for PAH are always delivered in pill form. Although oral therapy occupies an important position, it has some drawbacks and limitations in PAH management. For patients in World Health Organization functional class IV and with severe right heart failure, there are few data on the long-term survival of patients treated with oral medications. Further research, exploration, and clinical experience with oral therapy in severe PAH and combination therapy will redefine its position in PAH management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Student > Bachelor 11 20%
Other 8 14%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,183,901
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#199
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,462
of 295,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#6
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 295,288 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.