↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Multimodality Imaging of Thoracic Aortic Diseases in Adults

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
118 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Multimodality Imaging of Thoracic Aortic Diseases in Adults
Published in
JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, June 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.03.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole M. Bhave, Christoph A. Nienaber, Rachel E. Clough, Kim A. Eagle

Abstract

In diagnosing and following patients with acute aortic syndromes and thoracic aortic aneurysms, high-quality imaging of the thoracic aorta is indispensable. Mainstay modalities for thoracic aortic imaging are echocardiography, computed tomographic angiography, and magnetic resonance angiography. For any given clinical scenario, the imaging modality and protocol chosen will have a significant impact on sensitivity and specificity for the aortic diagnosis of concern. Imaging can also provide important ancillary information regarding myocardial performance, aortic valve morphology and function, and end-organ perfusion. Surveillance of patients following thoracic aortic surgery with serial imaging studies can identify complications that may require reintervention, and imaging has played an integral role in development of new surgical and interventional methods. Emerging techniques in thoracic aortic imaging include positron emission tomography, which addresses vessel wall inflammation, and 4-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography, which illustrates flow dynamics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 118 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Other 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Master 8 8%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 34 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 47%
Engineering 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 38 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 04 July 2019.
All research outputs
#634,018
of 25,722,279 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
#158
of 2,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,752
of 343,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
#3
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,722,279 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 2,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 343,876 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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 94% of its contemporaries.