↓ Skip to main content

CMR in inflammatory vasculitis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
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.
Title
CMR in inflammatory vasculitis
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1532-429x-14-82
Pubmed ID
Authors

Subha V Raman, Ashish Aneja, Wael N Jarjour

Abstract

Vasculitis, the inflammation of blood vessels, can produce devastating complications such as blindness, renal failure, aortic rupture and heart failure through a variety of end-organ effects. Noninvasive imaging with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has contributed to improved and earlier diagnosis. CMR may also be used in serial evaluation of such patients as a marker of treatment response and as an indicator of subsequent complications. Unique strengths of CMR favoring its use in such conditions are its abilities to noninvasively visualize both lumen and vessel wall with high resolution. This case-based review focuses on the large- and medium-vessel vasculitides where MR angiography has the greatest utility. Because of increasing recognition of cardiac involvement in small-vessel vasculitides, this review also presents evidence supporting greater consideration of CMR to detect and quantify myocardial microvascular disease. CMR's complementary role amidst traditional clinical, serological and other diagnostic techniques in personalized care for patients with vasculitis is emphasized. Specifically, the CMR laboratory can address questions related to extent and severity of vascular involvement. As ongoing basic and translational studies better elucidate poorly-defined underlying molecular mechanisms, this review concludes with a discussion of potential directions for the development of more targeted imaging approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 21%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 18 29%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Unspecified 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 15 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 April 2017.
All research outputs
#6,442,821
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#432
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,832
of 287,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 287,393 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.