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 |
Quantification of atrial dynamics using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: inter-study reproducibility
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-015-0140-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Johannes T. Kowallick, Geraint Morton, Pablo Lamata, Roy Jogiya, Shelby Kutty, Gerd Hasenfuß, Joachim Lotz, Eike Nagel, Amedeo Chiribiri, Andreas Schuster |
| Abstract |
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) offers quantification of phasic atrial functions based on volumetric assessment and more recently, on CMR feature tracking (CMR-FT) quantitative strain and strain rate (SR) deformation imaging. Inter-study reproducibility is a key requirement for longitudinal studies but has not been defined for CMR-based quantification of left atrial (LA) and right atrial (RA) dynamics. Long-axis 2- and 4-chamber cine images were acquired at 9:00 (Exam A), 9:30 (Exam B) and 14:00 (Exam C) in 16 healthy volunteers. LA and RA reservoir, conduit and contractile booster pump functions were quantified by volumetric indexes as derived from fractional volume changes and by strain and SR as derived from CMR-FT. Exam A and B were compared to assess the inter-study reproducibility. Morning and afternoon scans were compared to address possible diurnal variation of atrial function. Inter-study reproducibility was within acceptable limits for all LA and RA volumetric, strain and SR parameters. Inter-study reproducibility was better for volumetric indexes and strain than for SR parameters and better for LA than for RA dynamics. For the LA, reservoir function showed the best reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.94-0.97, coefficient of variation (CoV) 4.5-8.2 %), followed by conduit (ICC 0.78-0.97, CoV 8.2-18.5 %) and booster pump function (ICC 0.71-0.95, CoV 18.3-22.7). Similarly, for the RA, reproducibility was best for reservoir function (ICC 0.76-0.96, CoV 7.5-24.0 %) followed by conduit (ICC 0.67-0.91, CoV 13.9-35.9) and booster pump function (ICC 0.73-0.90, CoV 19.4-32.3). Atrial dynamics were not measurably affected by diurnal variation between morning and afternoon scans. Inter-study reproducibility for CMR-based derivation of LA and RA functions is acceptable using either volumetric, strain or SR parameters with LA function showing higher reproducibility than RA function assessment. Amongst the different functional components, reservoir function is most reproducibly assessed by either technique followed by conduit and booster pump function, which needs to be considered in future longitudinal research studies. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 19 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 May 2015.
All research outputs
#8,681,963
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#717
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,410
of 279,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#17
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 279,912 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.