↓ Skip to main content

Cardiac Masses on Cardiac CT: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 109)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
182 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 Mendeley
Title
Cardiac Masses on Cardiac CT: A Review
Published in
Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports, June 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12410-014-9281-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Kassop, Michael S. Donovan, Michael K. Cheezum, Binh T. Nguyen, Neil B. Gambill, Ron Blankstein, Todd C. Villines

Abstract

Cardiac masses are rare entities that can be broadly categorized as either neoplastic or non-neoplastic. Neoplastic masses include benign and malignant tumors. In the heart, metastatic tumors are more common than primary malignant tumors. Whether incidentally found or diagnosed as a result of patients' symptoms, cardiac masses can be identified and further characterized by a range of cardiovascular imaging options. While echocardiography remains the first-line imaging modality, cardiac computed tomography (cardiac CT) has become an increasingly utilized modality for the assessment of cardiac masses, especially when other imaging modalities are non-diagnostic or contraindicated. With high isotropic spatial and temporal resolution, fast acquisition times, and multiplanar image reconstruction capabilities, cardiac CT offers an alternative to cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in many patients. Additionally, cardiac masses may be incidentally discovered during cardiac CT for other reasons, requiring imagers to understand the unique features of a diverse range of cardiac masses. Herein, we define the characteristic imaging features of commonly encountered and selected cardiac masses and define the role of cardiac CT among noninvasive imaging options.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 175 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 28 16%
Student > Postgraduate 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 6%
Other 38 21%
Unknown 46 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 59%
Computer Science 3 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 50 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 October 2021.
All research outputs
#2,522,753
of 23,666,535 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports
#11
of 109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,952
of 229,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,666,535 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 229,470 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them