↓ Skip to main content

Prospective comparison of novel dark blood late gadolinium enhancement with conventional bright blood imaging for the detection of scar

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 1,388)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
58 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Prospective comparison of novel dark blood late gadolinium enhancement with conventional bright blood imaging for the detection of scar
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12968-017-0407-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rohin Francis, Peter Kellman, Tushar Kotecha, Andrea Baggiano, Karl Norrington, Ana Martinez-Naharro, Sabrina Nordin, Daniel S. Knight, Roby D. Rakhit, Tim Lockie, Philip N. Hawkins, James C. Moon, Derek J. Hausenloy, Hui Xue, Michael S. Hansen, Marianna Fontana

Abstract

Conventional bright blood late gadolinium enhancement (bright blood LGE) imaging is a routine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) technique offering excellent contrast between areas of LGE and normal myocardium. However, contrast between LGE and blood is frequently poor. Dark blood LGE (DB LGE) employs an inversion recovery T2 preparation to suppress the blood pool, thereby increasing the contrast between the endocardium and blood. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic utility of a novel DB phase sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR) LGE CMR sequence to standard bright blood PSIR LGE. One hundred seventy-two patients referred for clinical CMR were scanned. A full left ventricle short axis stack was performed using both techniques, varying which was performed first in a 1:1 ratio. Two experienced observers analyzed all bright blood LGE and DB LGE stacks, which were randomized and anonymized. A scoring system was devised to quantify the presence and extent of gadolinium enhancement and the confidence with which the diagnosis could be made. A total of 2752 LV segments were analyzed. There was very good inter-observer correlation for quantifying LGE. DB LGE analysis found 41.5% more segments that exhibited hyperenhancement in comparison to bright blood LGE (248/2752 segments (9.0%) positive for LGE with bright blood; 351/2752 segments (12.8%) positive for LGE with DB; p < 0.05). DB LGE also allowed observers to be more confident when diagnosing LGE (bright blood LGE high confidence in 154/248 regions (62.1%); DB LGE in 275/324 (84.9%) regions (p < 0.05)). Eighteen patients with no bright blood LGE were found to have had DB LGE, 15 of whom had no known history of myocardial infarction. DB LGE significantly increases LGE detection compared to standard bright blood LGE. It also increases observer confidence, particularly for subendocardial LGE, which may have important clinical implications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Lecturer 3 6%
Professor 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 19 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 42%
Engineering 6 11%
Mathematics 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 19 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 28 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,171,223
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#30
of 1,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,824
of 448,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#3
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,388 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 97% 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 448,354 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 91% of its contemporaries.