↓ Skip to main content

Rapid evaluation by lung-cardiac-inferior vena cava (LCI) integrated ultrasound for differentiating heart failure from pulmonary disease as the cause of acute dyspnea in the emergency setting

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Ultrasound, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 320)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
36 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rapid evaluation by lung-cardiac-inferior vena cava (LCI) integrated ultrasound for differentiating heart failure from pulmonary disease as the cause of acute dyspnea in the emergency setting
Published in
Cardiovascular Ultrasound, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1476-7120-10-49
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katsuya Kajimoto, Keiko Madeen, Tomoko Nakayama, Hiroki Tsudo, Tadahide Kuroda, Takashi Abe

Abstract

Rapid and accurate diagnosis and management can be lifesaving for patients with acute dyspnea. However, making a differential diagnosis and selecting early treatment for patients with acute dyspnea in the emergency setting is a clinical challenge that requires complex decision-making in order to achieve hemodynamic balance, improve functional capacity, and decrease mortality. In the present study, we examined the screening potential of rapid evaluation by lung-cardiac-inferior vena cava (LCI) integrated ultrasound for differentiating acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS) from primary pulmonary disease in patients with acute dyspnea in the emergency setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
Unknown 195 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 13%
Researcher 25 12%
Other 24 12%
Student > Postgraduate 19 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 51 25%
Unknown 41 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 125 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 5%
Engineering 3 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 <1%
Computer Science 2 <1%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 49 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 27 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,105,482
of 24,368,983 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#5
of 320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,963
of 286,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,368,983 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 320 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 286,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them