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 |
Extracellular volume quantification in isolated hypertension - changes at the detectable limits?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-015-0176-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas A. Treibel, Filip Zemrak, Daniel M. Sado, Sanjay M. Banypersad, Steven K. White, Viviana Maestrini, Andrea Barison, Vimal Patel, Anna S. Herrey, Ceri Davies, Mark J. Caulfield, Steffen E. Petersen, James C. Moon |
| Abstract |
Diffuse myocardial fibrosis (DMF) is important in cardiovascular disease, however until recently could only be assessed by invasive biopsy. We hypothesised that DMF measured by T1 mapping is elevated in isolated systemic hypertension. In a study of well-controlled hypertensive patients from a specialist tertiary centre, 46 hypertensive patients (median age 56, range 21 to 78, 52 % male) and 50 healthy volunteers (median age 45, range 28 to 69, 52 % male) underwent clinical CMR at 1.5 T with T1 mapping (ShMOLLI) using the equilibrium contrast technique for extracellular volume (ECV) quantification. Patients underwent 24-hours Automated Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM), echocardiographic assessment of diastolic function, aortic stiffness assessment and measurement of NT-pro-BNP and collagen biomarkers. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) revealed significant unexpected underlying pathology in 6 out of 46 patients (13 %; myocardial infarction n = 3; hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) n = 3); these were subsequently excluded. Limited, non-ischaemic LGE patterns were seen in 11 out of the remaining 40 (28 %) patients. Hypertensives on therapy (mean 2.2 agents) had a mean ABPM of 152/88 mmHg, but only 35 % (14/40) had left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH; LV mass male > 90 g/m(2); female > 78 g/m(2)). Native myocardial T1 was similar in hypertensives and controls (955 ± 30 ms versus 965 ± 38 ms, p = 0.16). The difference in ECV did not reach significance (0.26 ± 0.02 versus 0.27 ± 0.03, p = 0.06). In the subset with LVH, the ECV was significantly higher (0.28 ± 0.03 versus 0.26 ± 0.02, p < 0.001). In well-controlled hypertensive patients, conventional CMR discovered significant underlying diseases (chronic infarction, HCM) not detected by echocardiography previously or even during this study. T1 mapping revealed increased diffuse myocardial fibrosis, but the increases were small and only occurred with LVH. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 43% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 113 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 20% |
| Researcher | 19 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 31 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 54% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 39 | 34% |
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 18 October 2015.
All research outputs
#7,769,503
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#596
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,135
of 276,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#22
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 276,528 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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.