↓ Skip to main content

A case of isolated bicuspid pulmonary valve

Overview of attention for article published in Echo Research & Practice, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
A case of isolated bicuspid pulmonary valve
Published in
Echo Research & Practice, March 2018
DOI 10.1530/erp-17-0045
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramasamy Manivarmane, Rebecca Taylor, Rajdeep Khattar

Abstract

We present a 73 years old woman who presented with pelvic cancer, ongoing sepsis and presumably a new diastolic murmur. Her transthoracic echocardiogram, as part of a sepsis screen, showed an abnormal pulmonary valve with moderate regurgitation. Trans-oesophageal echocardiography using 3D imaging showed a bicuspid pulmonary valve as the cause for the moderate regurgitation, but with no clear source of infection. Bicuspid pulmonary valve as an isolated clinical entity is a rare finding in clinical practice. Bicuspid pulmonary valves tend to be more commonly associated with other congenital cardiac anomalies. Whereas, the incidence of bicuspid aortic valve is estimated to be about 1-2%, the incidence of bicuspid pulmonary valve is thought to be much lower at around 0.1%. This could be an underestimate due to difficulty in visualising the pulmonary valve en-face on standard two-dimensional echocardiography. The true prevalence of the condition may be uncovered by the routine use of 3D echocardiography.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 9%
Librarian 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 4 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 36%
Unspecified 1 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 9%
Engineering 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 11 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,083,782
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Echo Research & Practice
#94
of 268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,850
of 344,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Echo Research & Practice
#5
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 344,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.