| Title |
Dual-time-point FDG PET/CT imaging in prosthetic heart valve endocarditis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-017-0902-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A.M. Scholtens, L.E. Swart, H.J. Verberne, R.P.J. Budde, M.G.E.H. Lam |
| Abstract |
FDG PET/CT has been of increasing interest in the diagnostic workup of prosthetic heart valve endocarditis (PVE). Some reports advocate later imaging time points to improve the diagnostic accuracy for PVE. In this study, we compared standard and late FDG PET/CT images in patients with a clinical suspicion of PVE. Fourteen scans in 13 patients referred for FDG PET/CT for suspicion of PVE performed at standard (60 min post injection) and late (150 min post injection) time points were scored based on visual interpretation and semi-quantitatively with SUVmax and target-to-background ratio (TBR, defined as [SUVmax valve/SUVmean blood pool]). Final diagnosis was based on surgical findings in all cases of infection (n = 6) and unremarkable follow-up in all others (n = 8). Late images were more prone to false positive interpretation for both visual and semi-quantitative analyses. Visual analysis of the standard images yielded 1 false negative and 1 false positive result. On the late images, no scans were false negative but 5 scans were false positive. Late FDG PET/CT imaging for PVE seems prone to false positive results. Therefore, late imaging should be interpreted with caution. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 18% |
| United States | 2 | 18% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 27% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 48% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,772,095
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#177
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,315
of 324,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#4
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 324,351 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.