You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Diagnostic accuracy for CZT gamma camera compared to conventional gamma camera technique with myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography: Assessment of myocardial infarction and function
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, March 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-022-03185-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fredrik Hedeer, Shahnaz Akil, Jenny Oddstig, Cecilia Hindorf, Håkan Arheden, Marcus Carlsson, Henrik Engblom |
| Abstract |
The solid-state cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) gamma camera for myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (MPS) has theoretical advantages compared to the conventional gamma camera technique. This includes more sensitive detectors and better energy resolution. We aimed to explore the diagnostic performance of gated MPS with a CZT gamma camera compared to a conventional gamma camera for detection of myocardial infarct (MI) and assessment of left ventricular (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (LVEF), using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as the reference method. Seventy-three patients (26% female) with known or suspected chronic coronary syndrome were examined with gated MPS using both a CZT gamma camera and a conventional gamma camera as well as with CMR. Presence and extent of MI on MPS and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) CMR was evaluated. For LV volumes, LVEF and LV mass, gated MPS images and cine CMR images were evaluated. MI was found in 42 patients on CMR. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for the CZT and the conventional gamma camera were the same (67%, 100%, 100% and 69%). For infarct size > 3% on CMR, the sensitivity was 82% for the CZT and 73% for the conventional gamma camera, respectively. LV volumes were significantly underestimated by MPS compared to CMR (P ≤ .002 for all measures). The underestimation was slightly less pronounced for the CZT compared to the conventional gamma camera (2-10 mL, P ≤ .03 for all measures). For LVEF, however, accuracy was high for both gamma cameras. Differences between a CZT and a conventional gamma camera for detection of MI and assessment of LV volumes and LVEF are small and do not appear to be clinically significant. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 4 | 44% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 4 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 17 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,819,060
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#46
of 2,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,438
of 426,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 426,108 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.