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 |
Cardiac T1 Mapping and Extracellular Volume (ECV) in clinical practice: a comprehensive review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-016-0308-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Philip Haaf, Pankaj Garg, Daniel R. Messroghli, David A. Broadbent, John P. Greenwood, Sven Plein |
| Abstract |
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance is increasingly used to differentiate the aetiology of cardiomyopathies. Late Gadolinium Enhancement (LGE) is the reference standard for non-invasive imaging of myocardial scar and focal fibrosis and is valuable in the differential diagnosis of ischaemic versus non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Diffuse fibrosis may go undetected on LGE imaging. Tissue characterisation with parametric mapping methods has the potential to detect and quantify both focal and diffuse alterations in myocardial structure not assessable by LGE. Native and post-contrast T1 mapping in particular has shown promise as a novel biomarker to support diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic decision making in ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathies as well as in patients with acute chest pain syndromes. Furthermore, changes in the myocardium over time may be assessed longitudinally with this non-invasive tissue characterisation method. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 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 | 10 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 14% |
| Spain | 7 | 11% |
| Saudi Arabia | 5 | 8% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 3% |
| Jordan | 1 | 2% |
| Iraq | 1 | 2% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 42 | 67% |
| Scientists | 10 | 16% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 716 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 713 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 102 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 100 | 14% |
| Other | 69 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 66 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 52 | 7% |
| Other | 144 | 20% |
| Unknown | 183 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 341 | 48% |
| Engineering | 44 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 11 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 1% |
| Other | 51 | 7% |
| Unknown | 236 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 07 January 2022.
All research outputs
#803,194
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#19
of 1,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,075
of 418,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. 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 418,558 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 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.