↓ Skip to main content

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance reference ranges for the heart and aorta in Chinese at 3T

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, April 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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance reference ranges for the heart and aorta in Chinese at 3T
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12968-016-0236-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thu-Thao Le, Ru San Tan, Michelle De Deyn, Elizabeth Pee Chong Goh, Yiying Han, Bao Ru Leong, Stuart Alexander Cook, Calvin Woon-Loong Chin

Abstract

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) reference ranges have not been well established in Chinese. Here we determined normal cardiac and aortic reference ranges in healthy Singaporean Chinese and investigated how these data might affect clinical interpretation of CMR scans. In 180 healthy Singaporean Chinese (20 to 69 years old; males, n = 91), comprehensive cardiac assessment was performed using the steady state free precision technique (3T Ingenia, Philips) and images were analysed by two independent observers (CMR42, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging). Measurements were internally validated using standardized approaches: left ventricular mass (LVM) was measured in diastole and systole (with and without papillary muscles) and stroke volumes were compared in both ventricles. All reference ranges were stratified by sex and age; and "indeterminate/borderline" regions were defined statistically at the limits of the normal reference ranges. Results were compared with clinical measurements reported in the same individuals. LVM was equivalent in both phases (mean difference 3.0 ± 2.5 g; P = 0.22) and stroke volumes were not significantly different in the left and right ventricles (P = 0.91). Compared to females, males had larger left and right ventricular volumes (P < 0.001 for all). Indexed LVM was significantly higher in males compared to females (50 ± 7 versus 38 ± 5 g/m(2), respectively; P < 0.001). Overall, papillary muscles accounted for only ~2 % of the total LVM. Indexed atrial sizes and aortic root dimensions were similar between males and females (P > 0.05 for all measures). In both sexes, age correlated negatively with left and right ventricular volumes; and positively with aortic sinus and sinotubular junction diameters (P < 0.0001 for all). There was excellent agreement in indexed stroke volumes in the left and right ventricles (0.1±5.7mL/m(2), 0.7±6.2 mL/m(2), respectively), LVM (0.6±6.4g/m(2)), atrial sizes and aortic root dimensions between values reported in clinical reports and our measured reference ranges. Comprehensive sex and age-corrected CMR reference ranges at 3T have been established in Singaporean Chinese. This is an important step for clinical practice and research studies of the heart and aorta in Asia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Poland 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Other 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 47%
Engineering 3 5%
Mathematics 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 15 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 July 2020.
All research outputs
#3,840,405
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#221
of 1,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,268
of 317,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,388 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 well, scoring higher than 83% 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 317,270 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.