↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

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…

Overview of attention for article published in JACC, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
168 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
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

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 127 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Other 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 29 22%
Unknown 31 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 55%
Engineering 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 39 29%
Attention Score in Context

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
#7,455,082
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#9,229
of 17,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,963
of 178,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#44
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 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 17,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. 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 178,680 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 57% of its contemporaries.