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 |
Representation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the AHA / ACC guidelines
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-017-0385-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, Guenter Pilz, Jeanette Schulz-Menger |
| Abstract |
Whereas evidence supporting the diagnostic value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has increased, there exists significant worldwide variability in the clinical utilization of CMR. A recent study demonstrated that CMR is represented in the majority of European Society for Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, with a large number of specific recommendations in particular regarding coronary artery disease. To further investigate the gap between the evidence and clinical use of CMR, this study analyzed the role of CMR in the guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA). Twenty-four AHA/ACC original guidelines, updates and new editions, published between 2006 and 2017, were screened for the terms "magnetic", "MRI", "CMR", "MR" and "imaging". Non-cardiovascular MR examinations were excluded. All CMR-related paragraphs and specific recommendations for CMR including the level of evidence (A, B, C) and the class of recommendation (I, IIa, IIb, III) were extracted. Twelve of the 24 guidelines (50.0%) contain specific recommendations regarding CMR. Four guidelines (16.7%) mention CMR in the text only, and 8 (33.3%) do not mention CMR. The 12 guidelines with recommendations for CMR contain in total 65 specific recommendations (31 class-I, 23 class-IIa, 6 class-IIb, 5 class-III). Most recommendations have evidence level C (44/65; 67.7%), followed by level B (21/65; 32.3%). There are no level A recommendations. 22/65 recommendations refer to vascular imaging, 17 to congenital heart disease, 8 to cardiomyopathies, 8 to myocardial stress testing, 5 to left and right ventricular function, 3 to viability, and 2 to valvular heart disease. CMR is represented in two thirds of the AHA/ACC guidelines, which contain a number of specific recommendations for the use of CMR. In a simplified comparison with the ESC guidelines, CMR is less represented in the AHA/ACC guidelines in particular in the field of coronary artery disease. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 | 14 | 38% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 19% |
| Mexico | 3 | 8% |
| Spain | 2 | 5% |
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 68% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 16% |
| Scientists | 4 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 96 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 17% |
| Researcher | 15 | 16% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 43% |
| Engineering | 7 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 36 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 26 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,640,531
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#50
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,575
of 329,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 329,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.