↓ Skip to main content

Minimum Reporting Standards for in vivo Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRSinMRS): Experts' consensus recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in NMR in Biomedicine, February 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 1,679)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
48 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Minimum Reporting Standards for in vivo Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRSinMRS): Experts' consensus recommendations
Published in
NMR in Biomedicine, February 2021
DOI 10.1002/nbm.4484
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Lin, Ovidiu Andronesi, Wolfgang Bogner, In‐Young Choi, Eduardo Coello, Cristina Cudalbu, Christoph Juchem, Graham J. Kemp, Roland Kreis, Martin Krššák, Phil Lee, Andrew A. Maudsley, Martin Meyerspeer, Vladamir Mlynarik, Jamie Near, Gülin Öz, Aimie L. Peek, Nicolaas A. Puts, Eva‐Maria Ratai, Ivan Tkáč, Paul G. Mullins

Abstract

The translation of MRS to clinical practice has been impeded by the lack of technical standardization. There are multiple methods of acquisition, post-processing, and analysis whose details greatly impact the interpretation of the results. These details are often not fully reported, making it difficult to assess MRS studies on a standardized basis. This hampers the reviewing of manuscripts, limits the reproducibility of study results, and complicates meta-analysis of the literature. In this paper a consensus group of MRS experts provides minimum guidelines for the reporting of MRS methods and results, including the standardized description of MRS hardware, data acquisition, analysis, and quality assessment. This consensus statement describes each of these requirements in detail and includes a checklist to assist authors and journal reviewers and to provide a practical way for journal editors to ensure that MRS studies are reported in full.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 30%
Researcher 16 21%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 22 29%
Physics and Astronomy 10 13%
Engineering 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 22 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 15 January 2022.
All research outputs
#887,866
of 21,576,978 outputs
Outputs from NMR in Biomedicine
#15
of 1,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,860
of 418,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NMR in Biomedicine
#1
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,576,978 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,679 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 418,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 99% of its contemporaries.