↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Imaging in Aortic Valve Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
The Role of Imaging in Aortic Valve Disease
Published in
Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12410-016-9383-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Russell J. Everett, David E. Newby, Andrew Jabbour, Zahi A. Fayad, Marc R. Dweck

Abstract

Aortic valve disease is the most common form of heart valve disease in developed countries. Imaging remains central to the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with both aortic stenosis and regurgitation and has traditionally been performed with echocardiography. Indeed, echocardiography remains the cornerstone of aortic valve imaging as it is cheap, widely available and provides critical information concerning valve hemodynamics and ventricular function. Whilst diagnostic in the vast majority of patients, echocardiography has certain limitations including operator variability, potential for measurement errors and internal inconsistencies in severity grading. In particular, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis is common and challenging to diagnose. Aortic valve imaging may therefore be improved with alternative and complimentary multimodality approaches. This review investigates established and novel techniques for imaging both the aortic valve and the myocardial remodelling response including echocardiography, computed tomography, cardiovascular magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography. Moreover, we examine how the complementary information provided by each modality may be used in both future clinical practice and the research arena.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Other 9 13%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 22 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 47%
Engineering 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 24 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,983,915
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports
#60
of 107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,246
of 341,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 341,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them