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 |
Pacemakers in MRI for the Neuroradiologist
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Neuroradiology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3174/ajnr.a5314 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A.W. Korutz, A. Obajuluwa, M.S. Lester, E.N. McComb, T.A. Hijaz, J.D. Collins, S. Dandamudi, B.P. Knight, A.J. Nemeth |
| Abstract |
Cardiac implantable electronic devices are frequently encountered in clinical practice in patients being screened for MR imaging examinations. Traditionally, the presence of these devices has been considered a contraindication to undergoing MR imaging. Growing evidence suggests that most of these patients can safely undergo an MR imaging examination if certain conditions are met. This document will review the relevant cardiac implantable electronic devices encountered in practice today, the background physics/technical factors related to scanning these devices, the multidisciplinary screening protocol used at our institution for scanning patients with implantable cardiac devices, and our experience in safely performing these examinations since 2010. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 19 | 30% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 9% |
| China | 3 | 5% |
| Spain | 3 | 5% |
| France | 3 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Mexico | 2 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 42 | 66% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 22% |
| Scientists | 4 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 6% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 16 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 19 March 2021.
All research outputs
#833,382
of 24,884,310 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Neuroradiology
#67
of 5,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,285
of 317,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Neuroradiology
#3
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,884,310 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 317,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 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 97% of its contemporaries.