↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: clinical implications in the evaluation of connective tissue diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Inflammation Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: clinical implications in the evaluation of connective tissue diseases
Published in
Journal of Inflammation Research, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/jir.s115508
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie Mavrogeni, George Markousis-Mavrogenis, Loukia Koutsogeorgopoulou, Genovefa Kolovou

Abstract

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging is a recently developed noninvasive, nonradiating, operator-independent technique that has been successfully used for the evaluation of congenital heart disease, valvular and pericardial diseases, iron overload, cardiomyopathies, great and coronary vessel diseases, cardiac inflammation, stress-rest myocardial perfusion, and fibrosis. Rheumatoid arthritis and other spondyloarthropathies, systemic lupus erythematosus, inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue diseases (CTDs), systemic sclerosis, vasculitis, and sarcoidosis are among CTDs with serious cardiovascular involvement; this is due to multiple causative factors such as myopericarditis, micro/macrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, myocardial fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, and finally heart failure. The complicated pathophysiology and the high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of CTDs demand a versatile, noninvasive, nonradiative diagnostic tool for early cardiovascular diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment follow-up. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging can detect early silent cardiovascular lesions, assess disease acuteness, and reliably evaluate the effect of both cardiac and rheumatic medication in the cardiovascular system, due to its capability to perform tissue characterization and its high spatial resolution. However, until now, high cost; lack of interaction between cardiologists, radiologists, and rheumatologists; lack of availability; and lack of experts in the field have limited its wider adoption in the clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 21%
Other 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 13 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,345,967
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Inflammation Research
#260
of 798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,491
of 310,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Inflammation Research
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 310,768 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.