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 |
Quantification of myocardium at risk in ST- elevation myocardial infarction: a comparison of contrast-enhanced steady-state free precession cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance with coronary angiographic jeopardy scores
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-017-0359-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rodney De Palma, Peder Sörensson, Dinos Verouhis, John Pernow, Nawzad Saleh |
| Abstract |
Clinical outcome following acute myocardial infarction is predicted by final infarct size evaluated in relation to left ventricular myocardium at risk (MaR). Contrast-enhanced steady-state free precession (CE-SSFP) cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is not widely used for assessing MaR. Evidence of its utility compared to traditional assessment methods and as a surrogate for clinical outcome is needed. Retrospective analysis within a study evaluating post-conditioning during ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with coronary intervention (n = 78). CE-SSFP post-infarction was compared with angiographic jeopardy methods. Differences and variability between CMR and angiographic methods using Bland-Altman analyses were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were compared to MaR and extent of infarction. MaR showed correlation between CE-SSFP, and both BARI and APPROACH scores of 0.83 (p < 0.0001) and 0.84 (p < 0.0001) respectively. Bias between CE-SSFP and BARI was 1.1% (agreement limits -11.4 to +9.1). Bias between CE-SSFP and APPROACH was 1.2% (agreement limits -13 to +10.5). Inter-observer variability for the BARI score was 0.56 ± 2.9; 0.42 ± 2.1 for the APPROACH score; -1.4 ± 3.1% for CE-SSFP. Intra-observer variability was 0.15 ± 1.85 for the BARI score; for the APPROACH score 0.19 ± 1.6; and for CE-SSFP -0.58 ± 2.9%. Quantification of MaR with CE-SSFP imaging following STEMI shows high correlation and low bias compared with angiographic scoring and supports its use as a reliable and practical method to determine myocardial salvage in this patient population. Clinical trial registration information for the parent clinical trial: Karolinska Clinical Trial Registration (2008) Unique identifier: CT20080014. Registered 04(th) January 2008. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 3 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 15% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 15% |
| Mexico | 1 | 8% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 15% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 31 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,840,956
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#303
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,224
of 328,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#12
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 328,207 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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.