| Title |
My warranty has expired: I need to be retested
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-017-1154-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mario Petretta, Wanda Acampa, Roberta Assante, Emilia Zampella, Carmela Nappi, Andrea Petretta, Alberto Cuocolo |
| Abstract |
The concept of warranty period, the duration of time during which the patient's risk remains low, is appealing. However, some points remain to be resolved before its translation in the clinical arena. Methodological issues should be standardized in order to compare the results of studies in different patient populations. Also, the definition of a "normal" study should always take into consideration the history of prior revascularization, the achieved level of exercise, and the stressor used. The promise of warranty can be questioned by the patient's baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and may also be influenced by life-style modification in the course of the follow-up. The "warranty period" concept should shift from data reflecting the time to a cardiac event to the development of ischemia, given an opportunity for intervention before a cardiac event occurs. In this context, clarify the role of serial imaging can be extremely useful, in particular to evaluate if and when retesting a patient after a normal scan. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 1 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 14% |
| Other | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 43% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 January 2018.
All research outputs
#19,962,154
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,486
of 2,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#326,737
of 451,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#32
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 451,046 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.