The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Basics of Functional Echocardiography in Children and Neonates
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pediatrics, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fped.2017.00235 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cécile Tissot, Vincent Muehlethaler, Nicole Sekarski |
| Abstract |
Functional echocardiography has become an invaluable tool in the pediatric and neonatal intensive care unit. "Point-of-care," "target," or "focus" echocardiography allows bedside cardiac ultrasound evaluation of the hemodynamic status of the patient, helps in directing treatment, thus improves patients care. In order to be able to perform functional echocardiography, it is essential to understand the principles of ultrasound, to know the echocardiographic equipment and settings necessary to acquire the images. This article focuses therefore on the basics of cardiac ultrasound. It is meant to give an overview of two-dimensional echocardiographic views, M-mode imaging and Doppler echocardiography for neonatologists and pediatric intensivists. It is richly illustrated for better understanding with some examples of clinical applications of functional echocardiography in the intensive care setting. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 126 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Researcher | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 21% |
| Unknown | 36 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 52% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 43 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 April 2019.
All research outputs
#12,831,373
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#1,479
of 6,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,377
of 437,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#21
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 437,491 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.