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 |
Chronic diuretic therapy attenuates renal BOLD magnetic resonance response to an acute furosemide stimulus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1532-429x-16-17 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael E Hall, Michael V Rocco, Timothy M Morgan, Craig A Hamilton, Matthew S Edwards, Jennifer H Jordan, Justin B Hurie, W Gregory Hundley |
| Abstract |
Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) magnetic resonance (MR) is a novel imaging tool that detects changes in tissue oxygenation. Increases in renal oxygenation in response to a standard 20 mg intravenous furosemide stimulus have been evaluated to assess kidney viability in patients with renal artery stenosis (RAS). The effect of prior exposure to furosemide on the ability of BOLD MR techniques to evaluate renal function is unknown.This study tested the hypothesis that chronic loop diuretic therapy is associated with attenuated responses in renal tissue oxygenation as measured by BOLD MR with an acute 20 mg intravenous furosemide stimulus in participants undergoing evaluation for RAS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 February 2014.
All research outputs
#16,978,129
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,061
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,661
of 324,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#17
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 7.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 324,765 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.