↓ 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 Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Taylor & Francis Ltd), 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 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 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
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Taylor & Francis Ltd), 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 168 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 16%
Other 25 15%
Researcher 25 15%
Student > Postgraduate 17 10%
Student > Master 16 10%
Other 32 19%
Unknown 26 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 105 63%
Physics and Astronomy 4 2%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Computer Science 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 37 22%

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
#1,743,622
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Taylor & Francis Ltd)
#65
of 1,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,022
of 395,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (Taylor & Francis Ltd)
#1
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,272 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. 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 395,188 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 42 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.