| Title |
What is the role of calcium scoring in the age of coronary computed tomographic angiography?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-012-9626-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Parag H. Joshi, Michael J. Blaha, Roger S. Blumenthal, Ron Blankstein, Khurram Nasir |
| Abstract |
Non-contrast-enhanced CT for coronary artery calcification (CAC) as a marker of coronary atherosclerosis has been studied extensively in the primary prevention setting. With rapidly evolving multidetector CT technology, contrast-enhanced coronary CT angiography (CCTA) has emerged as the non-invasive method of choice for detailed imaging of the coronary tree. In this review, we systematically evaluate the role of CAC testing in the age of CCTA in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, across varying levels of risk. Although the role of CAC testing is well established in asymptomatic subjects, its use in evaluating those with stable symptoms that represent possible obstructive coronary artery disease is controversial. Nevertheless, available data suggest that in low-to-intermediate risk symptomatic patients, CAC scanning may serve as an appropriate gatekeeper to further testing with either CCTA (if no or only mild CAC present) versus functional imaging or invasive coronary angiography (when moderate or severe CAC present). Given the strong short-term prognostic value of CAC = 0, studies are needed to further evaluate the role of CAC scanning in low-risk patients with acute chest pain presenting to the emergency room. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| 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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 23% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 51% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 June 2013.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,303
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,421
of 285,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#7
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 285,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.