↓ Skip to main content

Cardiothoracic CT: one-stop-shop procedure? Impact on the management of acute pulmonary embolism

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Cardiothoracic CT: one-stop-shop procedure? Impact on the management of acute pulmonary embolism
Published in
Insights into Imaging, August 2011
DOI 10.1007/s13244-011-0123-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pauline J. Abrahams-van Doorn, Ieneke J. C. Hartmann

Abstract

In the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) two groups of patients are traditionally identified, namely the hemodynamically stable and instable groups. However, in the large group of normotensive patients with PE, there seems to be a subgroup of patients with an increased risk of an adverse outcome, which might benefit from more aggressive therapy than the current standard therapy with anticoagulants. Risk stratification is a commonly used method to define subgroups of patients with either a high or low risk of an adverse outcome. In this review the clinical parameters and biomarkers of myocardial injury and right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) that have been suggested to play an important role in the risk stratification of PE are described first. Secondly, the use of more direct imaging techniques like echocardiography and CT in the assessment of RVD are discussed, followed by a brief outline of new imaging techniques. Finally, two risk stratification models are proposed, combining the markers of RVD with cardiac biomarkers of ischemia to define whether patients should be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and/or be given thrombolysis, admitted to the medical ward, or be safely treated at home with anticoagulant therapy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Postgraduate 4 15%
Other 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 67%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 September 2022.
All research outputs
#4,471,876
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#263
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,644
of 123,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 123,151 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.