| 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. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 23% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
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
#18,456,836
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#743
of 999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,155
of 283,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#13
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 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 999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 283,837 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 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.