↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of late gadolinium enhancement to improve outcomes prediction in patients referred for cardiovascular magnetic resonance after echocardiography

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Effectiveness of late gadolinium enhancement to improve outcomes prediction in patients referred for cardiovascular magnetic resonance after echocardiography
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1532-429x-15-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy C Wong, Kayla Piehler, Kathy S Puntil, Diego Moguillansky, Christopher G Meier, Joan M Lacomis, Peter Kellman, Stephen C Cook, David S Schwartzman, Marc A Simon, Suresh R Mulukutla, Erik B Schelbert

Abstract

Echocardiography (echo) is a first line test to assess cardiac structure and function. It is not known if cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) with late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) ordered during routine clinical practice in selected patients can add additional prognostic information after routine echo. We assessed whether CMR improves outcomes prediction after contemporaneous echo, which may have implications for efforts to optimize processes of care, assess effectiveness, and allocate limited health care resources.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 9 16%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 16 28%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 40%
Unspecified 9 16%
Psychology 3 5%
Computer Science 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 9 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 January 2013.
All research outputs
#17,498,555
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,086
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,445
of 295,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#13
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 295,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.