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 |
The diagnostic value of non-contrast enhanced quiescent interval single shot (QISS) magnetic resonance angiography at 3T for lower extremity peripheral arterial disease, in comparison to CT angiography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-016-0294-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gang Wu, Jun Yang, Tianjing Zhang, John N. Morelli, Shivraman Giri, Xiaoming Li, Wenlin Tang |
| Abstract |
The high incidence of renal insufficiency in patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease raises the concern for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) with respect to contrast enhanced MRA. The risk of NSF is eliminated with non-contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. The purpose of the current study is to compare image quality and diagnostic performance of non-contrast enhanced Quiescent Interval Single Shot (QISS) magnetic resonance angiography at 3 T versus CT angiography for evaluation of lower extremity Peripheral Arterial Disease (PAD). 32 consecutive patients (23 male, 9 female, age range 40-81 years, average age 61.97 years) with clinically suspected lower extremity PAD underwent QISS MRA and CTA. 19 of 32 patients underwent Digital Subtraction Angiography (DSA). Image quality of MRA was compared with CTA by two radiologists with 10 and 8 years' experience according to a 4-point scale. The Kappa test was used to determine the intermodality agreement between MRA and CTA in stenosis assessment, and interobserver agreement with each method. Sensitivity and specificity of CTA and MRA in detecting hemodynamically significant stenosis (≥50 %) were compared, with DSA serving as reference standard when available. Image quality of QISS MRA was rated 3.70 ± 0.49 by reader 1, and 3.72 ± 0.47 by reader 2, significantly lower than that of CTA (3.80 ± 0.44 and 3.82 ± 0.42, P < 0.001 for both readers). Intermodality agreement between MRA and CTA was excellent for assessment of stenosis (Kappa = 0.923 ± 0.013 for reader 1, 0.930 ± 0.012 for reader 2). Interobserver agreement was 0.936 ± 0.012 for CTA and 0.935 ± 0.011 for MRA. For readers 1 and 2 respectively, the sensitivity of QISS was 94.25 and 93.26 % (versus 90.11 and 89.13 % for CTA, P > 0.05), and specificity of QISS was 96.70 and 97.75 % (versus 96.55 and 96.51 % for CTA, P > 0.05). For heavily calcified segments, sensitivity of QISS (95.83 and 95.83 %) was significantly higher than that of CTA (74.19 and 76.67 %, P < 0.05). QISS is a reliable alternative to CTA for evaluation of lower extremity PAD, and may be suitable as a first-line screening examination in patients with contraindications to intravenous contrast administration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 59% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 October 2016.
All research outputs
#14,350,568
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#847
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,980
of 323,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#33
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 323,348 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.