↓ Skip to main content

Improving on the diagnostic characteristics of echocardiography for pulmonary hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Improving on the diagnostic characteristics of echocardiography for pulmonary hypertension
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10554-017-1114-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen Broderick-Forsgren, Clemontina A. Davenport, Joseph A. Sivak, Charles William Hargett, Michael C. Foster, Andrew Monteagudo, Alicia Armour, Sudarshan Rajagopal, Kristine Arges, Eric J. Velazquez, Zainab Samad

Abstract

This retrospective study evaluated the diagnostic characteristics of a combination of echocardiographic parameters for pulmonary hypertension (PH). Right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) estimation by echocardiography (echo) is used to screen for PH. However, the sensitivity of this method is suboptimal. We hypothesized that RVSP estimation in conjunction with other echo parameters would improve the value of echo for PH. The Duke Echo database was queried for adult patients with known or suspected PH who had undergone both echo and right heart catheterization (RHC) within a 24 h period between 1/1/2008 and 12/31/2013. Patients with complex congenital heart disease, heart transplantation, ventricular assist device, or on mechanical ventilation at time of study were excluded. Diagnostic characteristics of several echo parameters (right atrial enlargement, pulmonary artery (PA) enlargement, RV enlargement, RV dysfunction, and RVSP) for PH (mean PA pressure 25 mmHg on RHC) were evaluated among 1007 patients. RVSP ≥40 had a sensitivity of 77% (accuracy 77), while RVSP ≥35 had the highest sensitivity at 88% (81% accuracy). PA enlargement had the lowest sensitivity at 17%. The area under the curve (AUC) for RVSP was 0.844. A model including RVSP, RA, PA, RV enlargement and RV dysfunction had a higher AUC (AUC = 0.87) than RVSP alone. The value of echo as a screening test for PH is improved by a model incorporating a lower RVSP in addition to other right heart parameters. These findings need to be validated in prospective cohorts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 3 14%
Other 3 14%
Professor 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Unknown 9 41%
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 14 April 2017.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#351
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,739
of 322,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#6
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 322,886 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.