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 |
Histologic validation of myocardial fibrosis measured by T1 mapping: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-016-0313-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kai-yue Diao, Zhi-gang Yang, Hua-yan Xu, Xi Liu, Qin Zhang, Ke Shi, Li Jiang, Lin-jun Xie, Ling-yi Wen, Ying-kun Guo |
| Abstract |
Myocardial fibrosis is being increasingly recognised as a common final pathway of a wide range of diseases. Thus, the development of an accurate and convenient method to evaluate myocardial fibrosis is of major importance. Although T1 mapping is a potential alternative for myocardial biopsy, validation studies are limited to small numbers and vary regarding technical facets, and include only a restricted number of disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to objectively and comprehensively evaluate the performance of T1 mapping on the quantification of myocardial fibrosis using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies applying T1 mapping to measure myocardial fibrosis and that validated the results via histological analysis. A pooled correlation coefficient between the CMR and histology measurements was used to evaluate the performance of the T1 mapping. A total of 15 studies, including 308 patients who had CMR and myocardial biopsy were included and the pooled correlation coefficient between ECV measured by T1 mapping and biopsy for the selected studies was 0.884 (95% CI: 0.854, 0.914) and was not notably heterogeneous chi-squared = 7.44; P = 0.489 for the Q test and I^2 = 0.00%). The quantitative measurement of myocardial fibrosis via T1 mapping is associated with a favourable overall correlation with the myocardial biopsy measurements. Further studies are required to determine the calibration of the T1 mapping results for the biopsy findings of different cardiomyopathies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 4 | 36% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 27% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Scientists | 3 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 22 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 47% |
| Engineering | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 29 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#5,272,837
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#347
of 1,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,637
of 420,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#11
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,383 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 74% 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 420,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.