| Title |
Vascular CT and MRI: a practical guide to imaging protocols
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-018-0597-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
D. J. Murphy, A. Aghayev, M. L. Steigner |
| Abstract |
Non-invasive cross-sectional imaging techniques play a crucial role in the assessment of the varied manifestations of vascular disease. Vascular imaging encompasses a wide variety of pathology. Designing vascular imaging protocols can be challenging owing to the non-uniform velocity of blood in the aorta, differences in cardiac output between patients, and the effect of different disease states on blood flow. In this review, we provide the rationale behind-and a practical guide to-designing and implementing straightforward vascular computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols.Teaching Points • There is a wide range of vascular pathologies requiring bespoke imaging protocols. • Variations in cardiac output and non-uniform blood velocity complicate vascular imaging. • Contrast media dose, injection rate and duration affect arterial enhancement in CTA. • Iterative CT reconstruction can improve image quality and reduce radiation dose. • MRA is of particular value when imaging small arteries and venous studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 3 | 38% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 38% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 131 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 12% |
| Researcher | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 19% |
| Unknown | 48 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 8% |
| Engineering | 8 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 49 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 October 2019.
All research outputs
#5,882,423
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#329
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,928
of 337,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#15
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 337,361 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 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.