↓ Skip to main content

Effects of heart valve prostheses on phase contrast flow measurements in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance – a phantom study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Effects of heart valve prostheses on phase contrast flow measurements in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance – a phantom study
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12968-016-0319-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johanna Richau, Matthias A. Dieringer, Julius Traber, Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, Andreas Greiser, Carsten Schwenke, Jeanette Schulz-Menger

Abstract

Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance is often used to evaluate patients after heart valve replacement. This study systematically analyses the influence of heart valve prostheses on phase contrast measurements in a phantom trial. Two biological and one mechanical aortic valve prostheses were integrated in a flow phantom. B0 maps and phase contrast measurements were acquired at a 1.5 T MR scanner using conventional gradient-echo sequences in predefined distances to the prostheses. Results were compared to measurements with a synthetic metal-free aortic valve. The flow results at the level of the prosthesis differed significantly from the reference flow acquired before the level of the prosthesis. The maximum flow miscalculation was 154 ml/s for one of the biological prostheses and 140 ml/s for the mechanical prosthesis. Measurements with the synthetic aortic valve did not show significant deviations. Flow values measured approximately 20 mm distal to the level of the prosthesis agreed with the reference flow for all tested all prostheses. The tested heart valve prostheses lead to a significant deviation of the measured flow rates compared to a reference. A distance of 20 mm was effective in our setting to avoid this influence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 17%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 49%
Engineering 5 14%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 6%
Mathematics 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 13 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,286,858
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#92
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,087
of 424,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 424,382 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 89% 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 done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.