↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of inpatient multimodal cardiac imaging appropriateness at large academic medical centers

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Ultrasound, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Assessment of inpatient multimodal cardiac imaging appropriateness at large academic medical centers
Published in
Cardiovascular Ultrasound, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12947-015-0037-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Remfry, Howard Abrams, David M. Dudzinski, Rory B. Weiner, R. Sacha Bhatia

Abstract

Responding to concerns regarding the growth of cardiac testing, the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) published Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for various cardiac imaging modalities. Single modality cardiac imaging appropriateness has been reported but there have been no studies assessing the appropriateness of multiple imaging modalities in an inpatient environment. A retrospective study of the appropriateness of cardiac tests ordered by the inpatient General Internal Medicine (GIM) and Cardiology services at three Canadian academic hospitals was conducted over two one-month periods. Cardiac tests characterized were transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), single-photon emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT), and diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Overall, 553 tests were assessed, of which 99.8 % were classifiable by AUC. 91 % of all studies were categorized as appropriate, 4 % may be appropriate and 5 % were rarely appropriate. There were high rates of appropriate use of all modalities by GIM and Cardiology throughout. Significantly more appropriate diagnostic catheterizations were ordered by Cardiology than GIM (93 % vs. 82 %, p = <0.01). Cardiology ordered more appropriate studies overall (94 % vs. 88 %, p = 0.03) but there was no difference in the rate of rarely appropriate studies (3 % vs. 6 %, p = 0.23). The ACCF AUC captured the vast majority of clinical scenarios for multiple cardiac imaging modalities in this multi-centered study on Cardiology and GIM inpatients in the acute care setting. The rate of appropriate ordering was high across all imaging modalities. We recommend further work towards improving appropriate utilization of cardiac imaging resources focus on the out-patient setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 4 25%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 50%
Unspecified 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Decision Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 November 2015.
All research outputs
#7,411,963
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#80
of 310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,204
of 281,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 310 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 281,504 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.