↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge-based 3D reconstruction of the right ventricle: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance in adults with congenital heart disease

Overview of attention for article published in Echo Research & Practice, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
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.
Title
Knowledge-based 3D reconstruction of the right ventricle: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance in adults with congenital heart disease
Published in
Echo Research & Practice, December 2015
DOI 10.1530/erp-15-0029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aleksandra Trzebiatowska-Krzynska, Mieke Driessen, Gertjan Tj Sieswerda, Lars Wallby, Eva Swahn, Folkert Meijboom

Abstract

Assessment of right ventricular (RV) function is a challenge, especially in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). The aim of the present study is to assess whether knowledge-based RV reconstruction, used in the everyday practice of an echo-lab for adult CHD in a tertiary referral center, is accurate when compared to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) examination. Adult patients who would undergo CMR for assessment of the RV were asked to undergo an echo of the heart for further knowledge-based reconstruction (KBR). Echocardiographic images were acquired in standard views using a predefined imaging protocol. RV volumes and ejection fraction (EF) calculated using knowledge-based technology were compared with the CMR data of the same patient. Nineteen consecutive patients with congenital right heart disease were studied. Median age of the patients was 28 years (range 46 years). Reconstruction was possible in 16 out of 19 patients (85%). RV volumes assessed with this new method were smaller than with CMR. Indexed end diastolic volumes were 114±17 ml vs 121±19 ml, P<0.05 and EFs were 45±8% vs 47±9%, P<0.05 respectively. The correlation between the methods was good with an intraclass correlation of 0.84 for EDV and 0.89 for EF, P value <0.001 in both cases. KBR enables reliable measurement of RVs in patients with CHDs and can be used in clinical practice for analysis of volumes and EFs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Other 3 19%
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Postgraduate 3 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 75%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 January 2019.
All research outputs
#6,421,427
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Echo Research & Practice
#139
of 268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,907
of 395,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Echo Research & Practice
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 395,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.