↓ Skip to main content

Nuclear imaging for patients with a suspicion of infective endocarditis: Be part of the team!

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Nuclear imaging for patients with a suspicion of infective endocarditis: Be part of the team!
Published in
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12350-015-0369-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabien Hyafil, François Rouzet, Dominique Le Guludec

Abstract

The diagnosis of infective endocarditis (IE) is challenging and requires the association of morphological features suggestive of valvular infection such as the presence of vegetations or abscesses identified usually with echocardiography and positive blood culture or serologies suggestive of systemic bacterial infection. In the past 5 years, several groups confirmed the incremental value of FDG-PET imaging and radiolabeled leukocyte scintigraphy over echocardiography for the diagnosis of IE. Based on the latter studies, the presence of abnormal activity in the perivalvular region on either FDG-PET imaging or radiolabeled leukocyte scintigraphy has been added as a major criterion for the diagnosis of IE in the guidelines recently published. Nuclear physicians should therefore learn not only the imaging criteria in favor of active IE but also the pitfalls of these nuclear imaging techniques in order to give a useful answer to the referring physician for the management of these patients. In fact, the diagnosis of IE is often complex and requires the integration of multiple clinical, biological, and imaging parameters. Multi-disciplinary teams including cardiologists, infectious disease physicians, cardiac surgeons, and radiologists have been therefore set up in several institutions to discuss the diagnosis and management of patients with a suspicion of IE. It is now time for nuclear cardiologists to join the team.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Unknown 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Chemical Engineering 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,169,543
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#977
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,481
of 399,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#15
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 399,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.