↓ Skip to main content

CT vs SPECT: CT is the first-line test for the diagnosis and prognosis of stable coronary artery disease

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
CT vs SPECT: CT is the first-line test for the diagnosis and prognosis of stable coronary artery disease
Published in
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s12350-013-9690-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmed Aljizeeri, Myra S. Cocker, Benjamin J.W. Chow

Abstract

Non-invasive cardiac imaging is pivotal in the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with stable CAD. Nuclear SPECT, PET, stress echocardiography and more recently cardiac magnetic resonance imaging have been utilized with excellent diagnostic accuracy. However, along with their inherent individual limitations, most modalities detect ischemia but lack the ability to define coronary anatomy or evaluate for subclinical atherosclerosis. A modality that not only accurately diagnoses obstructive CAD and also facilitates early identification of non-obstructive CAD may be of interest because it may allow for earlier aggressive risk factor modification and primary prevention. Cardiac computerized tomographic angiography (CCTA) has the potential to accurately detect or exclude luminal stenosis, as well as identify and quantify subclinical atherosclerosis in the absence if luminal narrowing. However CCTA, being a relatively a new modality, has less supporting evidence when compared to more mature modalities such as SPECT. Therefore, the question that begs to be addressed is whether CCTA can be utilized as a first line test in establishing the diagnosis and prognosis of CAD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 22%
Student > Bachelor 5 19%
Other 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,600,874
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#884
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,663
of 206,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#5
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 206,480 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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.