Title |
Diagnostic and prognostic significance of cardiovascular magnetic resonance native myocardial T1 mapping in patients with pulmonary hypertension
|
---|---|
Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, December 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12968-018-0501-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Laura C. Saunders, Chris S. Johns, Neil J. Stewart, Charlotte J. E. Oram, David A. Capener, Valentina O. Puntmann, Charlie A. Elliot, Robin C. Condliffe, David G. Kiely, Martin J. Graves, Jim M. Wild, Andy J. Swift |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 Kingdom | 5 | 36% |
United States | 1 | 7% |
Russia | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 7 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 36% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 7 | 15% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
Other | 8 | 17% |
Unknown | 11 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 50% |
Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
Other | 5 | 11% |
Unknown | 14 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#4,160,043
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#241
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,203
of 447,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#9
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 447,819 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 66% of its contemporaries.