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 |
Quantitation of mitral regurgitation with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Heart, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-309054 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric V Krieger, James Lee, Kelley R Branch, Christian Hamilton-Craig |
| Abstract |
In this review discuss the application of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to the evaluation and quantification of mitral regurgitation and provide a systematic literature review for comparisons with echocardiography. Using the 2015 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology, we searched Medline and PubMed for original research articles published since 2000 that provided data on the quantification of mitral regurgitation by CMR. We identified 220 articles of which 33 were included. Four main techniques of mitral regurgitation quantification were identified. Reproducibility varied substantially between papers but was high overall for all techniques. However, quantification differed between the techniques studied. When compared with two-dimensional echocardiography, mitral regurgitation fraction and regurgitant volume measured by CMR were comparable but typically lower. CMR has high reproducibility for the quantification of mitral regurgitation in experienced centres, but further technological refinement is needed. An integrated and standardised approach that combines multiple techniques is recommended for optimal reproducibility and precise mitral regurgitation quantification. Definitive outcome studies using CMR as a basis for treatment are lacking but needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Colombia | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 70% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,433,164
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Heart
#2,780
of 5,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,642
of 319,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart
#58
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 319,867 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.