↓ Skip to main content

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance risk stratification in patients with clinically suspected myocarditis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Taylor & Francis Ltd), January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance risk stratification in patients with clinically suspected myocarditis
Published in
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Taylor & Francis Ltd), January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1532-429x-16-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia Schumm, Simon Greulich, Anja Wagner, Stefan Grün, Peter Ong, Kerstin Bentz, Karin Klingel, Reinhard Kandolf, Oliver Bruder, Steffen Schneider, Udo Sechtem, Heiko Mahrholdt

Abstract

The diagnosis of myocarditis is challenging due to its varying clinical presentation. Since myocarditis can be associated with significant 5-year mortality, and postmortem data show myocarditis in almost 10% of all adults suffering sudden cardiac death, individual risk stratification for patients with suspected myocarditis is of great clinical interest. We sought to demonstrate that patients with clinically suspected myocarditis and a normal cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) according to our definition have a good prognosis, independent of their clinical symptoms and other findings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 95 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 20%
Other 12 12%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 19 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 64%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Sports and Recreations 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 27 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 September 2020.
All research outputs
#4,496,373
of 18,890,258 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Taylor & Francis Ltd)
#344
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,790
of 268,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Taylor & Francis Ltd)
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,890,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 268,999 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.