↓ Skip to main content

Variability and homogeneity of cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial T2-mapping in volunteers compared to patients with edema

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Variability and homogeneity of cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial T2-mapping in volunteers compared to patients with edema
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1532-429x-15-27
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ralf Wassmuth, Marcel Prothmann, Wolfgang Utz, Matthias Dieringer, Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, Andreas Greiser, Jeanette Schulz-Menger

Abstract

The aim of the study was to test the reproducibility and variability of myocardial T2 mapping in relation to sequence type and spatial orientation in a large group of healthy volunteers. For control T2 mapping was also applied in patients with true edema. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) T2-mapping has potential for the detection and quantification of myocardial edema. Clinical experience is limited so far. The variability and potential pitfalls in broad application are unknown.

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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 85 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 13%
Other 7 8%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 9 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 52%
Engineering 11 13%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Physics and Astronomy 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 13 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,064,197
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,160
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,521
of 210,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#11
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,379 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 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 210,632 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.