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 |
Computed tomography angiography vs 3 T black-blood cardiovascular magnetic resonance for identification of symptomatic carotid plaques
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-014-0084-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jochen M Grimm, Andreas Schindler, Florian Schwarz, Clemens C Cyran, Anna Bayer-Karpinska, Tobias Freilinger, Chun Yuan, Jennifer Linn, Miguel Trelles, Maximilian F Reiser, Konstantin Nikolaou, Tobias Saam |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this prospective study was to perform a head-to-head comparison of the two methods most frequently used for evaluation of carotid plaque characteristics: Multi-detector Computed Tomography Angiography (MDCTA) and black-blood 3 T-cardiovascular magnetic resonance (bb-CMR) with respect to their ability to identify symptomatic carotid plaques. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 1 | 20% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Czechia | 1 | 3% |
| Austria | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 26% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 61% |
| Energy | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,148,294
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#934
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,081
of 268,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#20
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 268,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.