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 |
Use of a 1.0 Tesla open scanner for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-015-0144-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jimmy C Lu, James C Nielsen, Layne Morowitz, Muzammil Musani, Maryam Ghadimi Mahani, Prachi P. Agarwal, El-Sayed H. Ibrahim, Adam L. Dorfman |
| Abstract |
Open cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scanners offer the potential for imaging patients with claustrophobia or large body size, but at a lower 1.0 Tesla magnetic field. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of open CMR for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease. This retrospective, cross-sectional study included all patients ≤18 years old or with congenital heart disease who underwent CMR on an open 1.0 Tesla scanner at two centers from 2012-2014. Indications for CMR and clinical questions were extracted from the medical record. Studies were qualitatively graded for image quality and diagnostic utility. In a subset of 25 patients, signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios were compared to size- and diagnosis-matched patients with CMR on a 1.5 Tesla scanner. A total of 65 patients (median 17.3 years old, 60% male) were included. Congenital heart disease was present in 32 (50%), with tetralogy of Fallot and bicuspid aortic valve the most common diagnoses. Open CMR was used due to scheduling/equipment issues in 51 (80%), claustrophobia in 7 (11%), and patient size in 3 (5%); 4 patients with claustrophobia had failed CMR on a different scanner, but completed the study on open CMR without sedation. All patients had good or excellent image quality on black blood, phase contrast, magnetic resonance angiography, and late gadolinium enhancement imaging. There was below average image quality in 3/63 (5%) patients with cine images, and 4/15 (27%) patients with coronary artery imaging. SNR and CNR were decreased in cine and magnetic resonance angiography images compared to 1.5 Tesla. The clinical question was answered adequately in all but 2 patients; 1 patient with a Fontan had artifact from an embolization coil limiting RV volume analysis, and in 1 patient the right coronary artery origin was not well seen. Open 1.0 Tesla scanners can effectively evaluate pediatric and congenital heart disease, including patients with claustrophobia and larger body size. Despite minor artifacts and differences in SNR and CNR, the majority of clinical questions can be answered adequately, with some limitations with coronary artery imaging. Further evaluation is necessary to optimize protocols and image quality. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 3 | 50% |
| Mexico | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Librarian | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 46% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
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 24 March 2016.
All research outputs
#8,400,315
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#676
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,307
of 281,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#19
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
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 is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 281,465 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.