↓ Skip to main content

CMAJ

Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, January 2003
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
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
145 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
Title
Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, January 2003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clive Kearon

Abstract

No single noninvasive test for pulmonary embolism is both sensitive and specific. Some tests are good for "ruling in" pulmonary embolism (e.g., helical CT) and some tests are good for "ruling out" pulmonary embolism (e.g., D-dimer); others are able to do both but are often nondiagnostic (e.g., ventilation-perfusion lung scanning). For optimal efficiency, choice of the initial diagnostic test should be guided by clinical assessment of the probability of pulmonary embolism and by patient characteristics that may influence test accuracy. This selective approach to testing enables pulmonary embolism to be diagnosed or excluded in a minimum number of steps. However, even with the appropriate use of combinations of noninvasive tests, it is often not possible to definitively diagnose or exclude pulmonary embolism at initial presentation. Most of these patients can be managed safely without treatment or pulmonary angiography by repeating ultrasound testing of the proximal veins after one and 2 weeks to detect evolving deep vein thrombosis. Helical CT and MRI are rapidly improving as diagnostic tests for pulmonary embolism and are expected to become central to its evaluation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 2%
United States 2 1%
Unknown 184 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 13%
Student > Postgraduate 24 13%
Other 22 12%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Other 50 26%
Unknown 33 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 116 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Engineering 4 2%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 38 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 February 2021.
All research outputs
#7,028,024
of 23,182,015 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#4,616
of 8,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,342
of 129,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#30
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,182,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. 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 129,679 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 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.