| Title |
ACC/AHA/ASE/HRS/ISACHD/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/SOPE 2020 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging During the Follow-Up Care of Patients With Congenital Heart Disease A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee and Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Pediatric Echocardiography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC, January 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ritu Sachdeva, Anne Marie Valente, Aimee K. Armstrong, Stephen C. Cook, B. Kelly Han, Leo Lopez, George K. Lui, Sarah S. Pickard, Andrew J. Powell, Nicole M. Bhave, Ritu Sachdeva, Anne Marie Valente, Sarah S. Pickard, Jeanne M. Baffa, Puja Banka, Scott B. Cohen, Julie S. Glickstein, Joshua P. Kanter, Ronald J. Kanter, Yuli Y. Kim, Alaina K. Kipps, Larry A. Latson, Jeannette P. Lin, David A. Parra, Fred H. Rodriguez, Elizabeth V. Saarel, Shubhika Srivastava, Elizabeth A. Stephenson, Karen K. Stout, Ali N. Zaidi |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 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 | 23 | 38% |
| Colombia | 3 | 5% |
| Mexico | 2 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Poland | 1 | 2% |
| Peru | 1 | 2% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 44 | 72% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 15% |
| Scientists | 6 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 15% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 49% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 24 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 16 June 2022.
All research outputs
#542,657
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#1,382
of 16,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,278
of 473,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#24
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th 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 91% 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 473,328 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 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.