↓ Skip to main content

Fully automated, inline quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: repeatability of measurements in healthy subjects

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Fully automated, inline quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: repeatability of measurements in healthy subjects
Published in
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12968-018-0462-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise A. E. Brown, Sebastian C. Onciul, David A. Broadbent, Kerryanne Johnson, Graham J. Fent, James R. J. Foley, Pankaj Garg, Pei G. Chew, Kristopher Knott, Erica Dall’Armellina, Peter P. Swoboda, Hui Xue, John P. Greenwood, James C. Moon, Peter Kellman, Sven Plein

Abstract

Non-invasive assessment of myocardial ischaemia is a cornerstone of the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Measurement of myocardial blood flow (MBF) using positron emission tomography (PET) is the current reference standard for non-invasive quantification of myocardial ischaemia. Dynamic myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) offers an alternative to PET and a recently developed method with automated inline perfusion mapping has shown good correlation of MBF values between CMR and PET. This study assessed the repeatability of myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR in healthy subjects. Forty-two healthy subjects were recruited and underwent adenosine stress and rest perfusion CMR on two visits. Scans were repeated with a minimum interval of 7 days. Intrastudy rest and stress MBF repeatability were assessed with a 15-min interval between acquisitions. Interstudy rest and stress MBF and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) were measured for global myocardium and regionally for coronary territories and slices. There was no significant difference in intrastudy repeated global rest MBF (0.65 ± 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.62 ± 0.12 ml/g/min, p = 0.24, repeatability coefficient (RC) =24%) or stress (2.89 ± 0.56 ml/g/min vs 2.83 ± 0.64 ml/g/min, p = 0.41, RC = 29%) MBF. No significant difference was seen in interstudy repeatability for global rest MBF (0.64 ± 0.13 ml/g/min vs 0.64 ± 0.15 ml/g/min, p = 0.80, RC = 32%), stress MBF (2.71 ± 0.61 ml/g/min vs 2.55 ± 0.57 ml/g/min, p = 0.12, RC = 33%) or MPR (4.24 ± 0.69 vs 3.73 ± 0.76, p = 0.25, RC = 36%). Regional repeatability was good for stress (RC = 30-37%) and rest MBF (RC = 32-36%) but poorer for MPR (RC = 35-43%). Within subject coefficient of variation was 8% for rest and 11% for stress within the same study, and 11% for rest and 12% for stress between studies. Fully automated, inline, myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR shows good repeatability that is similar to the published PET literature. Both rest and stress MBF show better repeatability than MPR, particularly in regional analysis.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Master 6 9%
Lecturer 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 17 26%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 40%
Engineering 5 8%
Physics and Astronomy 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 25 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,204,497
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
#267
of 1,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,033
of 329,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
#12
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 329,957 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 76% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.