↓ Skip to main content

Role of Invasive and Non-invasive Imaging Tools in the Diagnosis and Optimal Treatment of Patients with Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiology Reports, September 2019
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
Title
Role of Invasive and Non-invasive Imaging Tools in the Diagnosis and Optimal Treatment of Patients with Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection
Published in
Current Cardiology Reports, September 2019
DOI 10.1007/s11886-019-1202-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Enrico Cerrato, Federico Giacobbe, Cristina Rolfo, Giorgio Quadri, Francesco Tomassini, Fabio Ferrari, Fabio Mariani, Matteo Anselmino, Matteo Bianco, Davide Belliggiano, Luca Lo Savio, Alfonso Franzé, Umberto Barbero, Italo Porto, Hernán Mejía-Rentería, Fernando Macaya, Pablo Salinas, Nieves Gonzalo, Javier Escaned, Laura Montagna, Ferdinando Varbella

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 September 2019.
All research outputs
#10,867,438
of 13,640,858 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#373
of 587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,196
of 230,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#28
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,640,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 587 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 230,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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.