The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Head-to-Head Comparison of Left Ventricular Function Assessment with 64-Row Computed Tomography, Biplane Left Cineventriculography, and Both 2- and 3-Dimensional Transthoracic Echocardiography Comparison With Magnetic Resonance Imaging as the Reference Standard
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.01.046 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Johannes Greupner, Elke Zimmermann, Andrea Grohmann, Hans-Peter Dübel, Till Althoff, Adrian C. Borges, Wolfgang Rutsch, Peter Schlattmann, Bernd Hamm, Marc Dewey |
| Abstract |
This study was designed to compare the accuracy of 64-row contrast computed tomography (CT), invasive cineventriculography (CVG), 2-dimensional echocardiography (2D Echo), and 3-dimensional echocardiography (3D Echo) for left ventricular (LV) function assessment with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 129 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 32 | 24% |
| Unknown | 31 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 74 | 55% |
| Engineering | 7 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Unknown | 40 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 21 December 2022.
All research outputs
#7,610,746
of 26,571,932 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#9,406
of 17,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,787
of 176,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#42
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,571,932 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 176,868 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.