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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The clinical impact of phase offset errors and different correction methods in cardiovascular magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging: a multi-scanner study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-020-00659-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Savine C. S. Minderhoud, Nikki van der Velde, Jolanda J. Wentzel, Rob J. van der Geest, Mohammed Attrach, Piotr A. Wielopolski, Ricardo P. J. Budde, Willem A. Helbing, Jolien W. Roos-Hesselink, Alexander Hirsch |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Greece | 1 | 33% |
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 34% |
| Engineering | 6 | 17% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 October 2020.
All research outputs
#16,282,309
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,006
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,083
of 430,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#18
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 7.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 430,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.