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 |
The predictive capabilities of a novel cardiovascular magnetic resonance derived marker of cardiopulmonary reserve on established prognostic surrogate markers in patients with pulmonary vascular disease: results of a longitudinal pilot study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-016-0316-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timothy J. Baillie, Samuel Sidharta, Peter M. Steele, Stephen G. Worthley, Scott Willoughby, Karen Teo, Prashanthan Sanders, Stephen J. Nicholls, Matthew I. Worthley |
| Abstract |
No unified method exists to effectively predict and monitor progression of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). We assessed the longitudinal relationship between a novel marker of cardiopulmonary reserve and established prognostic surrogate markers in patients with pulmonary vascular disease. Twenty participants with confirmed (n = 14) or at high risk (n = 6) for PAH underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) at baseline and after ~6 months of guideline-appropriate management. Ten PAH participants underwent RHC within 48 h of each CMR. RHC (mean pulmonary arterial pressure, mPAP; pulmonary vascular resistance index, PVRI; cardiac index, CI) and phase-contrast CMR (mean pulmonary arterial blood flow velocity, meanPAvel) measurements were taken at rest and during continuous adenosine infusion (70/140/210 mcg/kg/min). Initial meanPAvel's (rest and hyperemic) were correlated with validated surrogate prognostic parameters (CMR: RV ejection fraction, RVEF; RV end systolic volume indexed, RVESVI; RHC: PVRI, CI; biomarker: NT-pro brain natriuretic peptide, NTpBNP; clinical: 6-min walk distance, 6MWD), a measure of pulmonary arterial stiffness (elastic modulus) and volumetric estimation of RV ventriculoarterial (VA) coupling. Changes in meanPAvel's were correlated with changes in comparator parameters over time. At initial assessment, meanPAvel at rest correlated significantly with PVRI (inversely), CI (positively) and elastic modulus (inversely) (R (2) > 0.37,P < 0.05 for all), whereas meanPAvel at peak hyperemia correlated significantly with PVRI, RVEF, RVESVI, 6MWD, elastic modulus and VA coupling (R (2) > 0.30,P < 0.05 for all). Neither resting or hyperemia-derived meanPAvel correlated with NTpBNP levels. Initial meanPAvel at rest correlated significantly with RVEF, RVESVI, CI and VA coupling at follow up assessment (R (2) > 0.2,P < 0.05 for all) and initial meanPAvel at peak hyperemia correlated with RVEF, RVESVI, PVRI and VA coupling (R (2) > 0.37,P < 0.05 for all). Change in meanPAvel at rest over time did not show statistically significant correlation with change in prognostic parameters, while change in meanPAvel at peak hyperemia did show a significant relationship with ΔRVEF, ΔRVESVI, ΔNTpBNP and ΔCI (R (2) > 0.24,P < 0.05 for all). MeanPAvel during peak hyperemia correlated with invasive, non-invasive and clinical prognostic parameters at different time points. Further studies with predefined clinical endpoints are required to evaluated if this novel tool is a marker of disease progression in patients with pulmonary vascular disease. |
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% |
| Colombia | 1 | 9% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 31% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
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 14 February 2019.
All research outputs
#5,435,396
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#374
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,601
of 424,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#12
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 424,913 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 57% of its contemporaries.