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 |
Diagnostic value of medical thoracoscopy in malignant pleural effusion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12890-017-0451-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yan-Bing Wu, Li-Li Xu, Xiao-Juan Wang, Zhen Wang, Jun Zhang, Zhao-Hui Tong, Huan-Zhong Shi |
| Abstract |
Medical thoracoscopy has been shown to be an efficacious procedure in diagnosing unexplained exudative pleural effusions with excellent safety. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic significance of thoracoscopy in the management of patients with malignant pleural effusion (MPE). Consecutive patients with malignant pleural effusion were retrospectively reviewed, and their demographic, radiographic, thoracoscopic and histological data were collected. Between July 2005 and June 2014, 342 of 833 patients undergoing thoracoscopy were finally confirmed to suffer from MPE. The top three frequent causes of MPE were metastatic carcinoma (79.5%), malignant mesothelioma (10.2%), and lymphoma (2.9%). Among metastatic malignancies, the most common cancer was lung cancer (85.2%), followed by breast cancer (4.4%), ovarian cancer (2.2%), pancreatic cancer (1.8%), etc. No serious adverse events associated with thoracoscopy were recorded. Medical thoracoscopy is a valuable and safe tool in diagnosing malignant pleural effusion with minimal complication rates. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 12 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 409. 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 16 August 2017.
All research outputs
#60,015
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#2
of 1,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,570
of 317,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 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 1,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. 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 317,469 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 30 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 96% of its contemporaries.