↓ Skip to main content

Heterogeneity in patient diagnostic pathways: an example from contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnostic scans for focal liver lesions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
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
Heterogeneity in patient diagnostic pathways: an example from contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnostic scans for focal liver lesions
Published in
BMC Research Notes, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-7-199
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam B Smith, Alexandra Filby, Louise M Carr

Abstract

The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has recommended contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterisation of focal liver lesions where the results of standard unenhanced ultrasound are inconclusive. A further recommendation is for CEUS to replace other imaging modalities. However, little is currently known about the diagnostic pathways in the National Health Service (NHS) followed by patients with potential liver lesions. The aim of this study was to identify the diagnostic pathways for a number of representative hospital trusts and record the clinicians' views on patient experiences of these processes through a series of semi-structured interviews with UK clinicians (radiologists and sonographers) (N = 7). This study was undertaken in the broader context of a larger research project where the overarching research question is focused on patient preferences for CEUS and other imaging modalities, and how these impact on patient quality of life (QOL).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 33%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 April 2014.
All research outputs
#1,848,702
of 3,706,783 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#457
of 1,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,885
of 95,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#30
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,706,783 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,079 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 95,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.