| Title |
Comparison of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography, Fractional Flow Reserve, and Perfusion Imaging for Ischemia Diagnosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.056 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roel S. Driessen, Ibrahim Danad, Wijnand J. Stuijfzand, Pieter G. Raijmakers, Stefan P. Schumacher, Pepijn A. van Diemen, Jonathon A. Leipsic, Juhani Knuuti, S. Richard Underwood, Peter M. van de Ven, Albert C. van Rossum, Charles A. Taylor, Paul Knaapen |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 126 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 | 33 | 26% |
| United Kingdom | 14 | 11% |
| Mexico | 5 | 4% |
| Japan | 4 | 3% |
| Spain | 3 | 2% |
| Brazil | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Egypt | 2 | 2% |
| Argentina | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 14% |
| Unknown | 39 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 75 | 60% |
| Scientists | 25 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 21 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 210 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 48 | 23% |
| Unknown | 65 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 82 | 39% |
| Engineering | 26 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Unknown | 76 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. 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 31 July 2022.
All research outputs
#442,097
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#1,077
of 16,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,926
of 446,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#29
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 446,429 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.