↓ Skip to main content

Incidental findings in CT imaging of coronary artery bypass grafts: results from a Canadian multicenter prospective cohort

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Incidental findings in CT imaging of coronary artery bypass grafts: results from a Canadian multicenter prospective cohort
Published in
BMC Research Notes, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3168-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. Boldeanu, J. Perreault Bishop, S. Nepveu, L.-M. Stevens, G. Soulez, T. M. Kieser, A. Lamy, N. Noiseux, C. Chartrand-Lefebvre

Abstract

To assess the prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings identified during computed tomography imaging of coronary artery bypass grafts. This prospective study includes 144 patients undergoing coronary graft patency assessment using computed tomography. Incidental findings were classified as significant if they were considered to need an immediate action or treatment, short-term work-up or follow-up, or minor. A total of 211 incidental findings were present in 109 (75.7%) patients. Seventy-one incidental findings (33.6%) were cardiac and 140 (66.4%) were extracardiac. Most common cardiac incidental findings were atrial dilatation [39 patients, 48 incidental findings (67.6%)] and aortic valve calcifications (7 patients, 9.9%). Among the 140 extracardiac incidental findings, the most common were lung nodules (51 patients, 54 nodules, 38.6%), and emphysema (21 patients, 15%). Thirty-six (25.7%) extracardiac incidental findings were significant and notably, 23 (63.9%) were lung nodules. Follow-up was recommended in 37 cases, among which all patients with significant lung nodules (23 patients, 62.2%). In conclusion, most common computed tomography incidental findings in patients with coronary grafts were lung nodules and emphysema.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Professor 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Psychology 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,529,980
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,583
of 4,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#378,584
of 441,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#105
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 441,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.