| Title |
The role of inflammation in cardiovascular diseases: the predictive value of neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio as a marker in peripheral arterial disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s107635 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Feliciano Chanana Paquissi |
| Abstract |
Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is an important manifestation of atherosclerosis, with increasing prevalence worldwide. A growing body of evidence shows that the systemic inflammatory response is closely related to the development, progression, and prognosis of atherosclerosis. In the last decade, several studies have suggested the role of measured inflammatory biomarkers as predictors of severity and prognosis in PAD in an effort to stratify the risk of these patients, to improve treatment selection, and to predict the results after interventions. A simple inflammatory marker, more available than any other, is the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), which can be easily obtained in clinical practice, based on the absolute count of neutrophils and lymphocytes from the differential leukocytes count. Many researchers evaluated vigorously the NLR as a potential prognostic biomarker predicting pathological and survival outcomes in patients with atherosclerosis. In this work, we aim to present the role of NLR as a prognostic marker in patients with PAD through a thorough review of the literature. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
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 | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 35% |
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 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#752
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,090
of 311,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#29
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 311,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.