↓ Skip to main content

Comparative cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and coronary angiography combined with fractional flow reserve for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
patent
3 patents
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Comparative cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and coronary angiography combined with fractional flow reserve for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease
Published in
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Taylor & Francis Ltd), January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1532-429x-16-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karine Moschetti, David Favre, Christophe Pinget, Guenter Pilz, Steffen E Petersen, Anja Wagner, Jean-Blaise Wasserfallen, Juerg Schwitter

Abstract

According to recent guidelines, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) should undergo revascularization if significant myocardial ischemia is present. Both, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) allow for a reliable ischemia assessment and in combination with anatomical information provided by invasive coronary angiography (CXA), such a work-up sets the basis for a decision to revascularize or not. The cost-effectiveness ratio of these two strategies is compared.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Other 7 16%
Professor 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 50%
Engineering 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Psychology 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 August 2020.
All research outputs
#5,030,558
of 18,724,433 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Taylor & Francis Ltd)
#441
of 1,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,443
of 272,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Taylor & Francis Ltd)
#6
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,724,433 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,140 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 60% 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 272,453 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 75% 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 done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.