↓ Skip to main content

Chest CT examinations in patients presenting with acute chest pain: a pictorial review

Overview of attention for article published in Insights Into Imaging, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Chest CT examinations in patients presenting with acute chest pain: a pictorial review
Published in
Insights Into Imaging, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13244-015-0429-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastiaan Hammer, Lucia J. Kroft, Alberto L. Hidalgo, Ruben Leta, Albert de Roos

Abstract

Acute chest pain (ACP) is one of the most common presenting symptoms at the emergency department. The differential diagnosis is vast. To exclude life-threatening causes, radiologists encounter an increasing amount of thoracic computed tomography (CT) examinations including CT angiography of the heart and great vessels. The dual- and triple-rule CT examinations are currently implemented in clinical practice. We retrospectively identified chest CT examinations in the setting of acute chest pain in our hospitals and collected a variety of common and uncommon cases. In this pictorial essay, we present the most educative cases from patients who presented with acute chest pain in the emergency department of our hospitals and for whom a thoracic CT was ordered. When aortic emergencies, acute coronary syndrome, and pulmonary embolism are excluded, these cases may help the radiologist to suggest alternative diagnoses in the diagnostic challenge of acute chest pain. Teaching Points • The number of chest CT examinations for ACP is increasing.• Chest CT examinations may help suggesting alternative diagnosis in ACP.• Radiologists should be aware of the differential diagnosis of ACP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 4%
Netherlands 1 4%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 25%
Other 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 67%
Engineering 3 13%
Mathematics 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Unknown 3 13%

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 27 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,334,419
of 12,787,140 outputs
Outputs from Insights Into Imaging
#209
of 399 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,185
of 349,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights Into Imaging
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,787,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 399 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 349,903 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.