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 |
Inter-scallop separations of the posterior leaflet of the mitral valve: an important cause of ‘pathological’ mitral regurgitation in rheumatic heart disease screening
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Echo Research & Practice, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1530/erp-18-0010 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L. D. Hunter, M. Monaghan, G. Lloyd, A. J. K. Pecoraro, A. F. Doubell, P. G. Herbst |
| Abstract |
The 2012 World Heart Federation (WHF) criteria for echocardiographic diagnosis of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) identify that the finding of 'pathological' mitral regurgitation (MR) in a screened individual increases the likelihood of detecting underlying RHD. Cases of isolated "pathological MR are thus identified as 'borderline RHD'. A large-scale echocardiographic screening program (Echo in Africa) in South Africa has identified that inter-scallop separations of the posterior mitral valve leaflet (PMVL) can give rise to 'pathological' MR. The authors propose that this finding when associated with isolated 'pathological' MR is unrelated to the rheumatic disease process. In this case report, we present two examples of 'pathological' MR related to inter-scallop separation from the Echo in Africa image database. We provide additional screening tips to accurately identify this entity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | 9% |
| Mexico | 1 | 9% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| South Africa | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 33% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 33% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 17% |
| Librarian | 1 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 67% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#5,167,753
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Echo Research & Practice
#116
of 268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,418
of 342,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Echo Research & Practice
#5
of 14 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 79th 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 56% 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 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 73% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.