↓ Skip to main content

Definition of common carotid wall thickness affects risk classification in relation to degree of internal carotid artery stenosis: the Plaque At RISK (PARISK) study

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Ultrasound, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Definition of common carotid wall thickness affects risk classification in relation to degree of internal carotid artery stenosis: the Plaque At RISK (PARISK) study
Published in
Cardiovascular Ultrasound, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12947-017-0097-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

J Steinbuch, AC van Dijk, FHBM Schreuder, MTB Truijman, J Hendrikse, PJ Nederkoorn, A van der Lugt, E Hermeling, APG Hoeks, WH Mess

Abstract

Mean or maximal intima-media thickness (IMT) is commonly used as surrogate endpoint in intervention studies. However, the effect of normalization by surrounding or median IMT or by diameter is unknown. In addition, it is unclear whether IMT inhomogeneity is a useful predictor beyond common wall parameters like maximal wall thickness, either absolute or normalized to IMT or lumen size. We investigated the interrelationship of common carotid artery (CCA) thickness parameters and their association with the ipsilateral internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis degree. CCA thickness parameters were extracted by edge detection applied to ultrasound B-mode recordings of 240 patients. Degree of ICA stenosis was determined from CT angiography. Normalization of maximal CCA wall thickness to median IMT leads to large variations. Higher CCA thickness parameter values are associated with a higher degree of ipsilateral ICA stenosis (p < 0.001), though IMT inhomogeneity does not provide extra information. When the ratio of wall thickness and diameter instead of absolute maximal wall thickness is used as risk marker for having moderate ipsilateral ICA stenosis (>50%), 55 arteries (15%) are reclassified to another risk category. It is more reasonable to normalize maximal wall thickness to end-diastolic diameter rather than to IMT, affecting risk classification and suggesting modification of the Mannheim criteria. Clinical trials.gov NCT01208025 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Unspecified 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 7 30%
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 05 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,885,520
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#231
of 312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,554
of 308,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 312 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 308,981 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 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.