| Title |
MDCT of ductus diverticulum: 3D cinematic rendering to enhance understanding of anatomic configuration and avoid misinterpretation as traumatic aortic injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emergency Radiology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10140-018-1578-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steven P. Rowe, Pamela T. Johnson, Elliot K. Fishman |
| Abstract |
Acute aortic injuries are not common in the setting of severe blunt trauma, but lead to significant morbidity and mortality. High-quality MDCT with 2D MPRs and 3D rendering are essential to identify aortic trauma and distinguish anatomic variants and other forms of aortic pathology from an acute injury. Misinterpretation of mimics of acute aortic injury can lead to unnecessary arteriography and thoracic surgery. Since most traumatic injuries occur in the distal arch, radiologists must be cognizant of the range of appearances of variants related to the ductus diverticulum. Cinematic rendering (CR) is a new 3D post-processing tool that provides even greater anatomic detail than traditional volume rendering. In this case series, CR is used to impart to radiologists a better understanding of various anatomic configurations that can be seen with a ductus diverticulum. |
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 | 4 | 67% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 15% |
| Researcher | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 15% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 54% |
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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,406,258
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Radiology
#143
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,939
of 443,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Radiology
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 443,312 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 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.