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 |
Comparison of fast multi-slice and standard segmented techniques for detection of late gadolinium enhancement in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy – a prospective clinical cardiovascular magnetic resonance trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-018-0434-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fabian Muehlberg, Kristin Arnhold, Simone Fritschi, Stephanie Funk, Marcel Prothmann, Josephine Kermer, Leonora Zange, Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, Jeanette Schulz-Menger |
| Abstract |
Segmented phase-sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) sequences are reference standard for non-invasive evaluation of myocardial fibrosis using late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). Several multi-slice LGE sequences have been introduced for faster acquisition in patients with arrhythmia and insufficient breathhold capability. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of several multi-slice LGE sequences to detect and quantify myocardial fibrosis in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic myocardial disease. Patients with known or suspected LGE due to chronic infarction, inflammatory myocardial disease and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) were prospectively recruited. LGE images were acquired 10-20 min after administration of 0.2 mmol/kg gadolinium-based contrast agent. Three different LGE sequences were acquired: a segmented, single-slice/single-breath-hold fast low angle shot PSIR sequence (FLASH-PSIR), a multi-slice balanced steady-state free precession inversion recovery sequence (bSSFP-IR) and a multi-slice bSSFP-PSIR sequence during breathhold and free breathing. Image quality was evaluated with a 4-point scoring system. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) and acquisition time were evaluated. LGE was quantitatively assessed using a semi-automated threshold method. Differences in size of fibrosis were analyzed using Bland-Altman analysis. Three hundred twelve patients were enrolled (n = 212 chronic infarction, n = 47 inflammatory myocardial disease, n = 53 HCM) Of which 201 patients (67,4%) had detectable LGE (n = 143 with chronic infarction, n = 27 with inflammatory heart disease and n = 31 with HCM). Image quality and CNR were best on multi-slice bSSFP-PSIR. Acquisition times were significantly shorter for all multi-slice sequences (bSSFP-IR: 23.4 ± 7.2 s; bSSFP-PSIR: 21.9 ± 6.4 s) as compared to FLASH-PSIR (361.5 ± 95.33 s). There was no significant difference of mean LGE size for all sequences in all study groups (FLASH-PSIR: 8.96 ± 10.64 g; bSSFP-IR: 8.69 ± 10.75 g; bSSFP-PSIR: 9.05 ± 10.84 g; bSSFP-PSIR free breathing: 8.85 ± 10.71 g, p > 0.05). LGE size was not affected by arrhythmia or absence of breathhold on multi-slice LGE sequences. Fast multi-slice and standard segmented LGE sequences are equivalent techniques for the assessment of myocardial fibrosis, independent of an ischemic or non-ischemic etiology. Even in patients with arrhythmia and insufficient breathhold capability, multi-slice sequences yield excellent image quality at significantly reduced scan time and may be used as standard LGE approach. ISRCTN48802295 (retrospectively registered). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 | 6 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 17% |
| Mexico | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Colombia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 22% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 41% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
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 03 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,867,444
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#231
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,212
of 345,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 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 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 345,220 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 21 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 52% of its contemporaries.