↓ Skip to main content

Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) expert consensus for CMR imaging endpoints in clinical research: part I - analytical validation and clinical qualification

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
38 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) expert consensus for CMR imaging endpoints in clinical research: part I - analytical validation and clinical qualification
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12968-018-0484-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valentina O. Puntmann, Silvia Valbuena, Rocio Hinojar, Steffen E. Petersen, John P. Greenwood, Christopher M. Kramer, Raymond Y. Kwong, Gerry P. McCann, Colin Berry, Eike Nagel, Colin Berry, David Bluemke, Jens Bremerich, Rene Botnar, Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci, Robin P. Choudhury, Marc Dweck, Ingo Eitel, Vic Ferrari, Matthias Friedrich, John Greenwood, Rocio Hinojar, Greg Hundley, Christopher M. Kramer, Raymond Y. Kwong, Massimo Lombardi, Teresa Lopez Fernandez, Thomas Marwick, Eike Nagel, Jagat Narula, Stefan Neubauer, Amit Patel, Dudley Pennell, Steffen E. Petersen, Sven Plein, Sanjay Prasad, Valentina O. Puntmann, Frank Rademakers, Subha Raman, Hajime Sakuma, Javier Sanz, Jeannette Schulz-Menger, Orlando Simonetti, Andrew Swift, Andrew J. Taylor, T. Teixeira, Holger Thiele, Martin Ugander, Silvia Valbuena, Jos J. Westenberg, Alistair A. Young, on behalf of SCMR Clinical Trial Writing Group

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Changing natural history of the disease due to improved care of acute conditions and ageing population necessitates new strategies to tackle conditions which have more chronic and indolent course. These include an increased deployment of safe screening methods, life-long surveillance, and monitoring of both disease activity and tailored-treatment, by way of increasingly personalized medical care. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a non-invasive, ionising radiation-free method, which can support a significant number of clinically relevant measurements and offers new opportunities to advance the state of art of diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. The objective of the SCMR Clinical Trial Taskforce was to summarizes the evidence to emphasize where currently CMR-guided clinical care can indeed translate into meaningful use and efficient deployment of resources results in meaningful and efficient use. The objective of the present initiative was to provide an appraisal of evidence on analytical validation, including the accuracy and precision, and clinical qualification of parameters in disease context, clarifying the strengths and weaknesses of the state of art, as well as the gaps in the current evidence This paper is complementary to the existing position papers on standardized acquisition and post-processing ensuring robustness and transferability for widespread use. Themed imaging-endpoint guidance on trial design to support drug-discovery or change in clinical practice (part II), will be presented in a follow-up paper in due course. As CMR continues to undergo rapid development, regular updates of the present recommendations are foreseen.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Other 11 8%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 30 23%
Unknown 40 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 51%
Engineering 8 6%
Unspecified 2 2%
Physics and Astronomy 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 44 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,661,474
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#52
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,266
of 352,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 352,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.