↓ Skip to main content

Focus cardiac ultrasound: the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging viewpoint

Overview of attention for article published in European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
30 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 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
Focus cardiac ultrasound: the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging viewpoint
Published in
European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging, May 2014
DOI 10.1093/ehjci/jeu081
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aleksandar N. Neskovic, Thor Edvardsen, Maurizio Galderisi, Madalina Garbi, Giuseppe Gullace, Ruxandra Jurcut, Havard Dalen, Andreas Hagendorff, Patrizio Lancellotti, for the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging Document Reviewers:, Bogdan A. Popescu, Rosa Sicari, Alexander Stefanidis

Abstract

The concept of point-of-care, problem-oriented focus cardiac ultrasound examination (FoCUS) is increasingly applied in the settings of medical emergencies, including cardiac diseases. The European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) recognizes that cardiologists are not the only medical professionals dealing with cardiovascular emergencies. In reality, emergency cardiac diagnostics and treatment are also carried out by a wide range of specialists. For the benefit of the patients, the EACVI encourages any medical professional, sufficiently trained to obtain valuable information from FoCUS, to use it in emergency settings. These medical professionals need to have the necessary knowledge to understand the obtained information entirely, and to use it correctly, thoughtfully and with care. In this document, the EACVI underlines major differences between echocardiography and FoCUS, and underscores the need for specific education and training in order to fully utilize advantages and minimize drawbacks of this type of cardiac ultrasound examination in the critically ill patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 220 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 12%
Student > Postgraduate 26 12%
Other 25 11%
Student > Master 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Other 44 20%
Unknown 57 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 129 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 4%
Engineering 4 2%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 <1%
Other 9 4%
Unknown 65 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 20 May 2015.
All research outputs
#992,102
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging
#126
of 2,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,551
of 226,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging
#1
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,097 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 226,570 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 98% of its contemporaries.