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 |
Use of oral gadobenate dimeglumine to visualise the oesophagus during magnetic resonance angiography in patients with atrial fibrillation prior to catheter ablation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1532-429x-16-41 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Riccardo Faletti, Alessandro Rapellino, Francesca Barisone, Matteo Anselmino, Federico Ferraris, Paolo Fonio, Fiorenzo Gaita, Giovanni Gandini |
| Abstract |
Atrio-oesophageal fistula was first reported as a fatal complication of surgical endocardial and percutaneous endocardial radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation, with an incidence after catheter ablation between 0.03% and 0.5%. Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) was usually performed to obtain pre-procedural 3D images, used to merging into an electro-anatomical map, guiding step-by-step ablation strategy of AF. Our aim was to find an easy, safe and cost-effective way to enhance the oesophagus during MRA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 2 | 40% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 45% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 50% |
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 17 June 2014.
All research outputs
#14,494,517
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#854
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,939
of 244,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#16
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 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 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 244,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.