↓ Skip to main content

A systematic approach for analysis, interpretation, and reporting of coronary CTA studies

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
A systematic approach for analysis, interpretation, and reporting of coronary CTA studies
Published in
Insights into Imaging, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s13244-012-0167-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph A. Karlo, Sebastian Leschka, Paul Stolzmann, Nicola Glaser-Gallion, Simon Wildermuth, Hatem Alkadhi

Abstract

Over the past years, the number of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) studies performed worldwide has been steadily increasing. Performing a coronary CTA study with appropriate protocols tailored to the individual patient and clinical question is mandatory to obtain an image quality that is diagnostic for the study purpose. This process can be considered the primary mainstay of each coronary CTA study. The secondary mainstay is represented by the correct analysis and interpretation of the acquired data, as well as reporting of the pertinent imaging findings to the referring physician. The latter process requires knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of various post-processing methods. In addition, a standardized approach can be helpful to avoid false-positive and false-negative findings regarding the presence or absence of coronary artery disease. By implementing various radiation dose reduction techniques, care needs to be taken to keep the radiation dose of coronary CTA as low as reasonably achievable while maintaining the diagnostic capacity of the examination. This review describes a practical approach to the analysis and interpretation of coronary CTA data, including the standardized reporting of the relevant imaging findings to the referring physicians.

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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Egypt 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 13%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 25 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 50%
Engineering 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 26 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 May 2017.
All research outputs
#13,571,473
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#518
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,649
of 166,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 166,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.