↓ Skip to main content

Update on the safety and efficacy of commercial ultrasound contrast agents in cardiac applications

Overview of attention for article published in Echo Research & Practice, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Update on the safety and efficacy of commercial ultrasound contrast agents in cardiac applications
Published in
Echo Research & Practice, June 2015
DOI 10.1530/erp-15-0018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew W. Appis, Melissa J. Tracy, Steven B. Feinstein

Abstract

Ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) are currently used throughout the world in both clinical and research settings. The concept of contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging originated in the late 1960s, and the first commercially available agents were initially developed in the 1980s. Today's microbubbles are designed for greater utility and are used for both approved and off-label indications. In October 2007, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) imposed additional product label warnings that included serious cardiopulmonary reactions, several new disease-state contraindications, and a mandated 30 min post-procedure monitoring period for the agents Optison and Definity. These additional warnings were prompted by reports of cardiopulmonary reactions that were temporally related but were not clearly attributable to these UCAs. Subsequent published reports over the following months established not only the safety but also the improved efficacy of clinical ultrasound applications with UCAs. The FDA consequently updated the product labeling in June 2008 and reduced contraindications, although it continued to monitor select patients. In addition, a post-marketing program was proposed to the sponsors for a series of safety studies to further assess the risk of UCAs. Then in October 2011, the FDA leadership further downgraded the warnings after hearing the results of the post-marketing data, which revealed continued safety and improved efficacy. The present review focuses on the use of UCAs in today's clinical practice, including the approved indications, a variety of off-label uses, and the most recent data, which affirms the safety and efficacy of UCAs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 111 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Student > Master 15 13%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 9 8%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 27%
Engineering 13 11%
Chemistry 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 33 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 06 April 2023.
All research outputs
#3,073,945
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Echo Research & Practice
#78
of 268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,086
of 281,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Echo Research & Practice
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th 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 70% 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 281,402 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.