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 |
Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the pancreas shows impaired perfusion in pancreas insufficient cystic fibrosis patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Imaging, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12880-018-0259-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Trond Engjom, Kim Nylund, Friedemann Erchinger, Marcus Stangeland, Birger Norderud Lærum, Martin Mézl, Radovan Jiřík, Odd Helge Gilja, Georg Dimcevski |
| Abstract |
Perfusion assessment of the pancreas is challenging and poorly evaluated. Pancreatic affection is a prevalent feature of cystic fibrosis (CF). Little is known about pancreatic perfusion in CF. We aimed to assess pancreatic perfusion by contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) analysed in the bolus-and-burst model and software. We performed contrast enhanced ultrasound of the pancreas in 25 CF patients and 20 healthy controls. Perfusion data was analysed using a dedicated perfusion model providing the mean capillary transit-time (MTT), blood flow (BF) and blood-volume (BV). CF patients were divided according to exocrine function. The pancreas insufficient CF patients had longer MTT (p ≤ 0.002), lower BF (p < 0.001) and lower BV (p < 0.05) compared to the healthy controls and sufficient CF patients. Interrater analysis showed substantial agreement for the analysis of mean transit time. The bolus-and-burst method used on pancreatic CEUS-examinations demonstrates reduced perfusion in CF patients with pancreas affection. The perfusion model and software requires further optimization and standardization to be clinical applicable for the assessment of pancreatic perfusion. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 23% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 23% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 23% |
| Engineering | 2 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,522,480
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#270
of 607 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,166
of 326,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 607 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 326,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 5 of them.