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 |
Defining myocardial fibrosis in haemodialysis patients with non-contrast cardiac magnetic resonance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12872-018-0885-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. P. Graham-Brown, A. S. Singh, G. S. Gulsin, E. Levelt, J. A. Arnold, D. J. Stensel, J. O. Burton, G. P. McCann |
| Abstract |
Extent of myocardial fibrosis (MF) determined using late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) predicts outcomes, but gadolinium is contraindicated in advanced renal disease. We assessed the ability of native T1-mapping to identify and quantify MF in aortic stenosis patients (AS) as a model for use in haemodialysis patients. We compared the ability to identify areas of replacement-MF using native T1-mapping to LGE in 25 AS patients at 3 T. We assessed agreement between extent of MF defined by LGE full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) and the LGE 3-standard-deviations (3SD) in AS patients and nine T1 thresholding-techniques, with thresholds set 2-to-9 standard-deviations above normal-range (1083 ± 33 ms). A further technique was tested that set an individual T1-threshold for each patient (T11SD). The technique that agreed most strongly with FWHM or 3SD in AS patients was used to compare extent of MF between AS (n = 25) and haemodialysis patients (n = 25). Twenty-six areas of enhancement were identified on LGE images, with 25 corresponding areas of discretely increased native T1 signal identified on T1 maps. Global T1 was higher in haemodialysis than AS patients (1279 ms ± 5.8 vs 1143 ms ± 12.49, P < 0.01). No signal-threshold technique derived from standard-deviations above normal-range associated with FWHM or 3SD. T11SD correlated with FWHM in AS patients (r = 0.55) with moderate agreement (ICC = 0.64), (but not with 3SD). Extent of MF defined by T11SD was higher in haemodialysis vs AS patients (21.92% ± 1 vs 18.24% ± 1.4, P = 0.038), as was T1 in regions-of-interest defined as scar (1390 ± 8.7 vs 1276 ms ± 20.5, P < 0.01). There was no difference in the relative difference between remote myocardium and regions defined as scar, between groups (111.4 ms ± 7.6 vs 133.2 ms ± 17.5, P = 0.26). Areas of MF are identifiable on native T1 maps, but absolute thresholds to define extent of MF could not be determined. Histological studies are needed to assess the ability of native-T1 signal-thresholding techniques to define extent of MF in haemodialysis patients. Data is taken from the PRIMID-AS (NCT01658345) and CYCLE-HD studies (ISRCTN11299707). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 13% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 18 | 39% |
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 06 May 2021.
All research outputs
#15,540,879
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#851
of 1,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,716
of 327,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#17
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 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 1,648 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 327,048 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 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.