You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
McConnell's Sign Is Not Specific for Pulmonary Embolism: Case Report and Review of the Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Emergency Medicine, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.12.089 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brooks M Walsh, Christopher L Moore |
| Abstract |
McConnell's sign (right ventricular [RV] free wall hypokinesis with apical sparing on echocardiography) is often described as very specific for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). We present the case of a patient who, despite manifesting a classic McConnell's sign, was not found to have a PE. A 58-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with a cough, dyspnea, and leg swelling. A bedside focused cardiac ultrasound revealed hypokinesis of the RV free wall, with apical sparing, in the apical four-chamber view. A computed tomography angiogram for PE was negative. Ultrasounds of both lower extremities were negative for deep venous thrombosis, and a D-dimer was only marginally elevated. The patient was ultimately diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and systemic lupus erythematosus. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Emergency physicians should be aware that McConnell's sign is not completely specific for acute right heart strain from PE. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 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 | 15 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 11% |
| Canada | 4 | 5% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 3% |
| Turkey | 2 | 3% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Nicaragua | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 30 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 47 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 19 | 26% |
| Scientists | 6 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 16% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 63% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 April 2024.
All research outputs
#746,534
of 25,692,343 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Emergency Medicine
#97
of 3,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,613
of 280,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Emergency Medicine
#2
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,692,343 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 280,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.