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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Hemodynamic evaluation in patients with transposition of the great arteries after the arterial switch operation: 4D flow and 2D phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance compared with Doppler echocardiography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-016-0276-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelly Jarvis, Marleen Vonder, Alex J. Barker, Susanne Schnell, Michael Rose, James Carr, Joshua D. Robinson, Michael Markl, Cynthia K. Rigsby |
| Abstract |
Peak velocity measurements are used to evaluate the significance of stenosis in patients with transposition of the great arteries after the arterial switch operation (TGA after ASO). 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) provides 3-directional velocity encoding and full volumetric coverage of the great arteries and may thus improve the hemodynamic evaluation in these patients. The aim of this study was to compare peak velocities measured by 4D flow CMR with 2D phase contrast (PC) CMR and the gold standard Doppler echocardiography (echo) in patients with TGA after ASO. Nineteen patients (mean age 13 ± 9 years, range 1-25 years) with TGA after ASO who underwent 2D PC CMR and 4D flow CMR were included in this study. Peak velocities were measured with 4D flow CMR in the aorta and pulmonary arteries and compared to peak velocities measured with 2D PC CMR and Doppler echo. 2D PC CMR data were available in the ascending aorta, main, right and left pulmonary arteries (AAO/MPA/RPA/LPA) for 19/18/17/17 scans, respectively, and Doppler echo data were available for 13/9/6/6 scans, respectively. Peak velocities were measured with: 1) a single cross section for 2D PC CMR, 2) velocity maximum intensity projections (MIPs) for 4D flow CMR and 3) Doppler echo. Significantly higher peak velocities were found with 4D flow CMR than 2D PC CMR in the AAO (p = 0.003), MPA (p = 0.002) and RPA (p = 0.005) but not in the LPA (p = 0.200). No difference in peak velocity was found between 4D flow CMR and Doppler echo (p > 0.46) or 2D PC CMR and echo (p > 0.11) for all analyzed vessel segments. 4D flow CMR evaluation of patients with TGA after ASO detected higher peak velocities than 2D PC CMR, indicating the potential of 4D flow CMR to provide improved stenosis assessment in these patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| Norway | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 22% |
| Researcher | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 49% |
| Engineering | 8 | 16% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 05 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,173,443
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#532
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,864
of 329,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#18
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 329,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.