↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® Acute Chest Pain—Suspected Pulmonary Embolism

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 1,907)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
48 news outlets
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
Title
ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® Acute Chest Pain—Suspected Pulmonary Embolism
Published in
Journal of the American College of Radiology, May 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.02.027
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacobo Kirsch, Richard K.J. Brown, Travis S. Henry, Cylen Javidan-Nejad, Clinton Jokerst, Paul R. Julsrud, Jeffrey P. Kanne, Christopher M. Kramer, Jonathon A. Leipsic, Kalpesh K. Panchal, James G. Ravenel, Amar B. Shah, Tan-Lucien Mohammed, Pamela K. Woodard, Suhny Abbara

Abstract

Pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a common and important clinical condition that cannot be accurately diagnosed on the basis of signs, symptoms, and history alone. The diagnosis of PE has been facilitated by technical advancements and multidetector CT pulmonary angiography, which is the major diagnostic modality currently used. Ventilation and perfusion scans remain largely accurate and useful in certain settings. Lower-extremity ultrasound can substitute by demonstrating deep vein thrombosis; however, if negative, further studies to exclude PE are indicated. In all cases, correlation with the clinical status, particularly with risk factors, improves not only the accuracy of diagnostic imaging but also overall utilization. Other diagnostic tests have limited roles. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 382. 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 08 March 2018.
All research outputs
#20,235
of 11,318,094 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American College of Radiology
#9
of 1,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,367
of 260,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American College of Radiology
#1
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,318,094 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,907 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 260,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.