↓ Skip to main content

Lights and shadows of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in acute myocarditis

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Lights and shadows of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in acute myocarditis
Published in
Insights into Imaging, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13244-015-0444-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio Esposito, Marco Francone, Riccardo Faletti, Maurizio Centonze, Filippo Cademartiri, Iacopo Carbone, Roberto De Rosa, Ernesto Di Cesare, Ludovico La Grutta, Guido Ligabue, Luigi Lovato, Erica Maffei, Riccardo Marano, Massimo Midiri, Gianluca Pontone, Luigi Natale, Francesco De Cobelli, From the Working Group of the Italian College of Cardiac Radiology by SIRM

Abstract

Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is considered a primary tool for the diagnosis of acute myocarditis, due to its unique potential for non-invasive identification of the various hallmarks of the inflammatory response, with relevant impact on patient management and prognosis. Nonetheless, a marked variation in sensitivity and negative predictive value has been reported in the literature, reflecting the intrinsic drawbacks of current diagnostic criteria, which are based mainly on the use of conventional CMR pulse sequences. As a consequence, a negative exam cannot reliably exclude the diagnosis, especially in patients who do not present an infarct-like onset of disease. The introduction of new-generation mapping techniques further widened CMR potentials, allowing quantification of tissue changes and opening new avenues for non-invasive workup of patients with inflammatory myocardial disease. • CMR sensitivity varies in AM, reflecting its clinical polymorphism and the intrinsic drawbacks of LLc. • Semiquantitative approaches such as EGEr or T2 ratio have limited accuracy in diffuse disease forms. • T1 mapping allows objective quantification of inflammation, with no need to normalize measurements. • A revised protocol including T2-STIR, T1 mapping and LGE could be hypothesized to improve sensitivity.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 15%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 20 29%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Engineering 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Energy 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 June 2016.
All research outputs
#21,699,788
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#946
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,275
of 287,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#16
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 287,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.