↓ Skip to main content

Biventricular myocardial strain analysis in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) using cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Biventricular myocardial strain analysis in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) using cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12968-014-0075-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philipp Heermann, Dennis M Hedderich, Matthias Paul, Christoph Schülke, Jan Robert Kroeger, Bettina Baeßler, Thomas Wichter, David Maintz, Johannes Waltenberger, Walter Heindel, Alexander C Bunck

Abstract

Fibrofatty degeneration of myocardium in ARVC is associated with wall motion abnormalities. The aim of this study was to examine whether Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) based strain analysis using feature tracking (FT) can serve as a quantifiable measure to confirm global and regional ventricular dysfunction in ARVC patients and support the early detection of ARVC.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Canada 2 2%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 103 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 17%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 10 9%
Other 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 26 24%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 46%
Engineering 7 6%
Unspecified 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 36 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 October 2014.
All research outputs
#16,551,540
of 26,106,397 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,008
of 1,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,617
of 269,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#26
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,106,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,390 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 269,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.