| Title |
Chest computed tomography angiography in children on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatric Radiology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00247-017-4034-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nathan C. Hull, Gary R. Schooler, Larry A. Binkovitz, Eric E. Williamson, Phillip A. Araoz, Lifeng Yu, Philip M. Young |
| Abstract |
Performing chest CT angiography on pediatric patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be challenging. Successfully performing CT angiography in these children requires substantial communication and coordination between the radiologists and clinical care providers. Additionally, the radiologist must understand the child's anatomy and disease pathophysiology, flow dynamics of the ECMO circuit, image acquisition timing, contrast injection site, and volume, rate and duration of contrast administration. In this article we highlight the vital factors the radiologist needs to consider to optimize the chest CT angiography in pediatric patients on ECMO. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 24% |
| Researcher | 4 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 24% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 53% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,471,571
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#525
of 2,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,764
of 440,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#16
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,094 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 440,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.