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 |
Application of ultrasound imaging biomarkers (HistoScanning™) improves staging reliability of prostate biopsies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-017-2896-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. F. Hamann, D. Meyer, S. Knüpfer, J. Fuchs, K. P. Jünemann, C. M. Naumann |
| Abstract |
Imaging biomarkers like HistoScanning™ augment the informative value of ultrasound. Analogue image-guidance might improve the diagnostic accuracy of prostate biopsies and reduce misclassifications in preoperative staging and grading. Comparison of 77 image-guided versus 88 systematic prostate biopsies revealed that incorrect staging and Gleason misclassification occurs less frequently in image-guided than in systematic prostate biopsies. Systematic prostate biopsies (4-36 cores, median 12 cores) tended to detect predominantly unilateral tumors (39% sensitivity, 90.9% specificity, 17.5% negative and 50% positive predictive values). Bilateral tumors were diagnosed more frequently by image-guided prostate biopsies (87.9% sensitivity, 72.7% specificity, 50% negative and 96.8% positive predictive values). Regarding the detection of lesions with high Gleason scores ≥ 3 + 4, systematic prostate and image-guided biopsies yielded sensitivity and specificity rates of 66.7% vs 93.5%, 86% vs 64.5%, as well as negative and positive predictive values of 71.2% vs 87%, and 83.3% vs 79.6%, respectively. Potential reason for systematic prostate biopsies missing the correct laterality and the correct Gleason score was a mismatch between the biopsy template and the respective pathological cancer localization. This supports the need for improved detection techniques such as ultrasound imaging biomarkers and image-adapted biopsies. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 27% |
| Researcher | 2 | 18% |
| Other | 2 | 18% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 27% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 9% |
| Engineering | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
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 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#17,919,786
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,850
of 4,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,023
of 331,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#93
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 331,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.