↓ Skip to main content

Role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
Role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12968-016-0225-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, Jeanette Schulz-Menger

Abstract

Despite common enthusiasm for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), its application in Europe is quite diverse. Restrictions are attributed to a number of factors, like limited access, deficits in training, and incomplete reimbursement. Aim of this study is to perform a systematic summary of the representation of CMR in the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Twenty-nine ESC guidelines were screened for the terms "magnetic", "MRI", "CMR", "MR" and "imaging". As 3 topics were published twice (endocarditis, pulmonary hypertension, NSTEMI), 26 guidelines were finally included. MRI in the context of non-cardiovascular examinations was not recognized. The main CMR-related conclusions and, if available, the level of evidence and the class of recommendation were extracted. Fourteen of the 26 guidelines (53.8 %) contain specific recommendations regarding the use of CMR. Nine guidelines (34.6 %) mention CMR in the text, and 3 (11.5 %) do not mention CMR. The 14 guidelines with recommendations regarding the use of CMR contain 39 class-I recommendations, 12 class-IIa recommendations, 10 class-IIb recommendations and 2 class-III recommendations. Most of the recommendations have evidence level C (41/63; 65.1 %), followed by level B (16/63; 25.4 %) and level A (6/63; 9.5 %). The four guidelines, which absolutely contained most recommendations for CMR, were stable coronary artery disease (n = 14), aortic diseases (n = 9), HCM (n = 7) and myocardial revascularization (n = 7). CMR is represented in the majority of the ESC guidelines. They contain many recommendations in favour of the use of CMR in specific scenarios. Issues regarding access, training and reimbursement have to be solved to offer CMR to patients in accordance with the ESC guidelines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 17%
Other 25 14%
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Student > Master 15 8%
Other 31 17%
Unknown 37 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 59%
Physics and Astronomy 4 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 48 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 26 February 2021.
All research outputs
#2,046,521
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#75
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,679
of 404,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,379 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 94% 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 404,696 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.