↓ Skip to main content

Applicability, limitations and downstream impact of echocardiography utilization based on the appropriateness use criteria for transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Applicability, limitations and downstream impact of echocardiography utilization based on the appropriateness use criteria for transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10554-012-0008-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad Alqarqaz, Jayanth Koneru, Meredith Mahan, Karthik Ananthasubramaniam

Abstract

To evaluate impact of echocardiography on patient management based on published transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC). A prospective analysis of 170 consecutive outpatients who underwent TTE over a period of 2 months. Echo studies were classified into appropriate (A), inappropriate (I), or uncertain (U) based on the 2007/2011 AUC. A fourth group of studies which were not addressed by the 2007 AUC and therefore have unclassifiable category (UC) were also included in the analysis. The impact of AUC categorized echo results on patient management were evaluated by review of patient records in the ensuing 2 months. Based on 2007 AUC, 77% (131/170) were A, 9% were I, and 14% were UC category. Echo studies classified as A were more likely to be associated with new and major findings, (P = 0.034) and (P = 0.028) respectively when compared to all other studies. Furthermore, patient care intervention as defined in the study protocol was significantly associated with A studies as opposed to I and UC studies (P = 0.004). A studies were also more likely to have an impact on patient management when compared to other studies (P = 0.022). When studies were re-evaluated based on the 2011 AUC, all prior UC studies were now included in the U group in the new AUC of 2011, and there was no change in A or I study classification. This study demonstrates that the 2007/2011 AUC are helpful in evaluating practice patterns in a majority of outpatients undergoing TTE. Implementing AUC have a direct clinical impact as A studies are significantly more likely to reveal new and major findings, and more likely to result in a patient care intervention based on the echo findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Unspecified 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 6 27%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 9 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 April 2013.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#1,460
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,128
of 248,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 248,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.