| Title |
Postmortem fetal magnetic resonance imaging: where do we stand?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-018-0627-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aurélie D’Hondt, Marie Cassart, Raymond De Maubeuge, Gustavo Soto Ares, Jacques Rommens, E. Fred Avni |
| Abstract |
Postmortem fetal magnetic resonance imaging (PMFMRI) is increasingly used thanks to its good overall concordance with histology paralleling the rising incidence of parental refusal of autopsy. The technique could become a routine clinical examination but it needs to be standardized and conducted by trained radiologists. Such radiologists should be aware of not only the (congenital and acquired) anomalies that can involve the fetus, but also of the "physiological" postmortem changes. In this article, we intend to focus on the contribution of PMFMRI based on the existing literature and on our own experience, as we presently perform the technique routinely in our clinical practice. • Concordance rates between PMFMRI and autopsy are high for detecting fetal pathologies. • PMFMRI is more acceptable for parents than traditional autopsy. • PMFMRI is becoming widely used as a part of the postmortem investigations. • A dedicated radiologist needs to learn to interpret correctly a PMFMRI. • PMFMRI can be easily realized in daily clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 2 | 40% |
| Germany | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 17% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 21% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 38% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,710,353
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#454
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,801
of 333,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
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 57% 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 333,811 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.