↓ Skip to main content

Effects of inaccuracies in arterial path length measurement on differences in MRI and tonometry measured pulse wave velocity

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
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.
Title
Effects of inaccuracies in arterial path length measurement on differences in MRI and tonometry measured pulse wave velocity
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12872-017-0546-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan R Weir-McCall, Faisel Khan, Deirdre B Cassidy, Arsh Thakur, Jennifer Summersgill, Shona Z Matthew, Fiona Adams, Fiona Dove, Stephen J Gandy, Helen M Colhoun, Jill JF Belch, J Graeme Houston

Abstract

Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV) and aortic PWV measured using MRI (MRI-PWV) show good correlation, but with a significant and consistent bias across studies. The aim of the current study was to evaluate whether the differences between cf.-PWV and MRI-PWV can be accounted for by inaccuracies of currently used distance measurements. One hundred fourteen study participants were recruited into one of 4 groups: Type 2 diabetes melltus (T2DM) with cardiovascular disease (CVD) (n = 23), T2DM without CVD (n = 41), CVD without T2DM (n = 25) and a control group (n = 25). All participants underwent cf.-PWV, cardiac MRI and whole body MR angiography(WB-MRA). 90 study participants also underwent aortic PWV using MRI. cf.-PWVEXT was performed using a SphygmoCor device (Atcor Medical, West Ryde, Australia). The true intra-arterial pathlength was measured using the WB-MRA and then used to recalculate the cf.-PWVEXT to give a cf.-PWVMRA. Distance measurements were significantly lower on WB-MRA than on external tape measure (mean diff = -85.4 ± 54.0 mm,p < 0.001). MRI-PWV was significantly lower than cf.-PWVEXT (MRI-PWV = 8.1 ± 2.9 vs. cf.-PWVEXT = 10.9 ± 2.7 ms(-1),p < 0.001). When cf.-PWV was recalculated using the inter-arterial distance from WB-MRA, this difference was significantly reduced but not lost (MRI-PWV = 8.1 ± 2.9 ms(-1) vs. cf.-PWVMRA 9.1 ± 2.1 ms(-1), mean diff = -0.96 ± 2.52 ms(-1),p = 0.001). Recalculation of the PWV increased correlation with age and pulse pressure. Differences in cf.-PWV and MRI PWV can be predominantly but not entirely explained by inaccuracies introduced by the use of simple surface measurements to represent the convoluted arterial path between the carotid and femoral arteries.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Researcher 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 18%
Engineering 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,421,487
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#1,337
of 1,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,563
of 310,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#31
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,633 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 310,791 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.