↓ Skip to main content

Renal Denervation: Where to Now?

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiology Reports, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Renal Denervation: Where to Now?
Published in
Current Cardiology Reports, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11886-015-0675-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neil J. Wimmer, Laura Mauri

Abstract

Resistant hypertension remains a growing problem worldwide. Renal sympathetic denervation was thought to be a new method for the treatment for resistant hypertension. Early studies demonstrated a marked benefit in patients who underwent renal denervation procedures, but the pivotal SYMPLICITY 3-HTN trial, the only sham-controlled randomized trial performed, did not show a benefit for patients treated with the procedure compared to sham. There is still much to learn about the physiology and anatomy of renal sympathetic pathways as well as careful attention to medication adherence in order to understand the role of renal sympathetic denervation in treating hypertensive patients. While renal denervation technology remains available in clinical practice outside of the USA, we expect further development of this technology in the upcoming years and the continued evaluation of this technology in patients with hypertension as well as other disease states to fully understand its role.

Twitter Demographics

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

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 %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 36%
Student > Master 8 32%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unspecified 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 68%
Unspecified 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 2 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 May 2016.
All research outputs
#10,391,742
of 13,029,564 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#347
of 541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,754
of 264,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,029,564 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 541 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 264,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.