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 |
Advances in bladder cancer imaging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-11-104 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shaista Hafeez, Robert Huddart |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this article is to review the imaging techniques that have changed and are anticipated to change bladder cancer evaluation. The use of multidetector 64-slice computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remain standard staging modalities. The development of functional imaging such as dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI and positron emission tomography (PET)-CT allows characterization of tumor physiology and potential genotypic activity, to help stratify and inform future patient management. They open up the possibility of tumor mapping and individualized treatment solutions, permitting early identification of response and allowing timely change in treatment. Further validation of these methods is required however, and at present they are used in conjunction with, rather than as an alternative to, conventional imaging techniques. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Tunisia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 22% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 51% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 April 2013.
All research outputs
#6,782,242
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,556
of 3,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,835
of 201,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#77
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 201,724 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.