The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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.
| Title |
Treatment of patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: focus on riociguat
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s80131 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zachary R Smith, Charles T Makowski, Rana L Awdish |
| Abstract |
Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a disease of the pulmonary vascular bed that is characterized by elevations in the mean pulmonary artery pressure in the setting of perfusion defects on ventilation-perfusion scan, and subsequently confirmed by pulmonary angiography. CTEPH, or World Health Organization (WHO) group 4 pulmonary hypertension, is a result of unresolved thromboembolic obstruction in the pulmonary arteries. Pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) is the treatment of choice for CTEPH as it is a potentially curative therapy. However, up to one-third of patients are not candidates for the surgery, either due to distal and inaccessible nature of the lesions or comorbid conditions. Due to remodeling that occurs in nonobstructed pulmonary vessels, a portion of patients who have undergone PEA have residual CTEPH after the procedure, attributable to high shear stress prior to PEA. This phenomenon has led to the understanding of a so-called "two-compartment model" of CTEPH, opening the door to pharmacologic treatment strategies. In 2013, riociguat, a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, was approved in the US and Europe for the treatment of inoperable or persistent/recurrent CTEPH. This article reviews the current management of CTEPH with a focus on riociguat. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 20% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 44% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
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 30 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,740,505
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#705
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,139
of 353,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#23
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 353,658 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 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.