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 |
Single bolus versus split dose gadolinium administration in extra-cellular volume calculation at 3 Tesla
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-015-0112-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam K McDiarmid, Peter P Swoboda, Bara Erhayiem, David P Ripley, Ananth Kidambi, David A Broadbent, David M Higgins, John P Greenwood, Sven Plein |
| Abstract |
Diffuse myocardial fibrosis may be quantified with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) by calculating extra-cellular volume (ECV) from native and post-contrast T1 values. Accurate ECV calculation is dependent upon the contrast agent having reached equilibrium within tissue compartments. Previous studies have used infusion or single bolus injections of contrast to calculate ECV. In clinical practice however, split dose contrast injection is commonly used as part of stress/rest perfusion studies. In this study we sought to assess the effects of split dose versus single bolus contrast administration on ECV calculation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 54% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 September 2015.
All research outputs
#23,084,818
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,293
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,844
of 363,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#40
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 363,497 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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.