↓ Skip to main content

Head circumference - a useful single parameter for skull volume development in cranial growth analysis?

Overview of attention for article published in Head & Face Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Head circumference - a useful single parameter for skull volume development in cranial growth analysis?
Published in
Head & Face Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13005-017-0159-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Markus Martini, Anne Klausing, Guido Lüchters, Nils Heim, Martina Messing-Jünger

Abstract

The measurement of maximal head circumference is a standard procedure in the examination of childrens' cranial growth and brain development. The objective of the study was to evaluate the validity of maximal head circumference to cranial volume in the first year of life using a new method which includes ear-to-ear over the head distance and maximal cranial length measurement. 3D surface scans for cranial volume assessment were conducted in this method comparison study of 44 healthy Caucasian children (29 male, 15 female) at the ages of 4 and 12 months. Cranial volume increased from measurements made at 4 months to 12 months of age by an average of 1174 ± 106 to 1579 ± 79 ml. Maximal cranial circumference increased from 43.4 ± 9 cm to 46.9 ± 7 cm and the ear-to ear measurement increased from 26.3 ± 21 cm to 31.6 ± 18 cm at the same time points. There was a monotone association between maximal head circumference (HC) and increase in volume, yet a backwards inference from maximal circumference to the volume had a predictive value of only 78% (adjusted R2). Including the additional measurement of distance from ear to ear strengthened the ability of the model to predict the true value attained to 90%. The addition of the parameter skull length appeared to be negligible. The results demonstrate that for a distinct improvement in the evaluation of a physiological cranial volume development, the additional measurement of the ear-to ear distance using a measuring tape is expedient, and, especially for cases with pathological skull changes, such as craniosynostosis, ought to be conducted.

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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 22 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Engineering 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 28 44%

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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#13,245,850
of 16,669,654 outputs
Outputs from Head & Face Medicine
#150
of 286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#298,886
of 412,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Face Medicine
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,669,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 286 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 412,489 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.