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 |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 61% |
| Engineering | 3 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
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
#15,206,093
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#631
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,669
of 273,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 273,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.