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 |
Fully quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion ready for clinical use: a comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-017-0388-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Henrik Engblom, Hui Xue, Shahnaz Akil, Marcus Carlsson, Cecilia Hindorf, Jenny Oddstig, Fredrik Hedeer, Michael S. Hansen, Anthony H. Aletras, Peter Kellman, Håkan Arheden |
| Abstract |
Recent studies have shown that quantification of myocardial perfusion (MP) at stress and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) offer additional diagnostic and prognostic information compared to qualitative and semi-quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion distribution in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Technical advancements have enabled fully automatic quantification of MP using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to be performed in-line in a clinical workflow. The aim of this study was to validate the use of the automated CMR perfusion mapping technique for quantification of MP using 13N-NH3 cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) as the reference method. Twenty-one patients with stable CAD were included in the study. All patients underwent adenosine stress and rest perfusion imaging with 13N-NH3 PET and a dual sequence, single contrast bolus CMR on the same day. Global and regional MP were quantified both at stress and rest using PET and CMR. There was good agreement between global MP quantified by PET and CMR both at stress (-0.1 ± 0.5 ml/min/g) and at rest (0 ± 0.2 ml/min/g) with a strong correlation (r = 0.92, p < 0.001; y = 0.94× + 0.14). Furthermore, there was strong correlation between CMR and PET with regards to regional MP (r = 0.83, p < 0.001; y = 0.87× + 0.26) with a good agreement (-0.1 ± 0.6 ml/min/g). There was also a significant correlation between CMR and PET with regard to global and regional MPR (r = 0.69, p = 0.001 and r = 0.57, p < 0.001, respectively). There is good agreement between MP quantified by 13N-NH3 PET and dual sequence, single contrast bolus CMR in patients with stable CAD. Thus, CMR is viable in clinical practice for quantification of MP. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 8 | 28% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 10% |
| Sweden | 2 | 7% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Cyprus | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 55% |
| Scientists | 7 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 120 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 21% |
| Unknown | 34 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 38% |
| Engineering | 16 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 37 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,503,317
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#42
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,923
of 337,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#3
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,523,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,379 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 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 337,212 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.