↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of LVEF using a new 16-segment wall motion score in echocardiography

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Assessment of LVEF using a new 16-segment wall motion score in echocardiography
Published in
Echo Research & Practice, June 2018
DOI 10.1530/erp-18-0006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Real Lebeau, Karim Serri, Maria Di Lorenzo, Claude Sauvé, Hoai Viet Van Le, Vicky Soulières, Malak El-Rayes, Maude Pagé, Chimène Zaïani, Jérôme Garot, Frédéric Poulin

Abstract

Simpson biplane method and 3D by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), radionuclide angiography (RNA) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) are the most accepted techniques for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment. Wall motion score index (WMSI) by TTE is an accepted complement. However, the conversion from WMSI to LVEF is obtained through a regression equation, which may limit its use. In this retrospective study, we aimed to validate a new method to derive LVEF from the wall motion score in 95 patients. The new score consisted of attributing a segmental EF to each LV segment based on the wall motion score and averaging all 16 segmental EF into a global LVEF. This segmental EF score was calculated on TTE in 95 patients, and RNA was used as the reference LVEF method. LVEF using the new segmental EF 15-40-65 score on TTE was compared to the reference methods using linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses. The median LVEF was 45% (interquartile range 32-53%; range from 15 to 65%). Our new segmental EF 15-40-65 score derived on TTE correlated strongly with RNA-LVEF (r = 0.97). Overall, the new score resulted in good agreement of LVEF compared to RNA (mean bias 0.61%). The standard deviations (s.d.s) of the distributions of inter-method difference for the comparison of the new score with RNA were 6.2%, indicating good precision. LVEF assessment using segmental EF derived from the wall motion score applied to each of the 16 LV segments has excellent correlation and agreement with a reference method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Computer Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,782,070
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Echo Research & Practice
#175
of 268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,764
of 342,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Echo Research & Practice
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
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 is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 342,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.