↓ Skip to main content

MRI of paediatric liver tumours: How we review and report

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Imaging, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
MRI of paediatric liver tumours: How we review and report
Published in
Cancer Imaging, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40644-016-0083-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan C. Shelmerdine, Derek J. Roebuck, Alexander J. Towbin, Kieran McHugh

Abstract

Liver tumours are fortunately rare in children. Benign tumours such as haemangiomas and cystic mesenchymal hamartomas are typically seen in infancy, often before 6 months of age. After that age, malignant hepatic tumours increase in frequency. The differentiation of a malignant from benign lesion on imaging can often negate the need for biopsy. Ultrasound is currently the main screening tool for suspected liver pathology, and is ideally suited for evaluation of hepatic lesions in children due to their generally small size. With increasing research, public awareness and parental anxiety regarding radiation dosage from CT imaging, MRI is now unquestionably the modality of choice for further characterisation of hepatic mass lesions.Nevertheless the cost, length of imaging time and perceived complexity of a paediatric liver MR study can be intimidating to the general radiologist and referring clinician. This article outlines standard MR sequences utilised, reasons for their utilisation, types of mixed hepatocyte specific/extracellular contrast agents employed and imaging features that aid the interpretation of paediatric liver lesions. The two commonest paediatric liver malignancies, namely hepatoblastoma and hepatocellular carcinoma are described. Differentiation of primary hepatic malignancies with metastatic disease and mimickers of malignancy such as focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and hepatic adenomas are also featured in this review..Imaging should aim to clarify the presence of a lesion, the likelihood of malignancy and potential for complete surgical resection. Reviewing and reporting the studies should address these issues in a systematic fashion whilst also commenting upon background liver parenchymal appearances. Clinical information and adequate patient preparation prior to MR imaging studies help enhance the diagnostic yield.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 10 11%
Other 9 10%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Master 9 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 25 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Psychology 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 30 34%
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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#319
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,819
of 356,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 356,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.