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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Clinical manifestations and diagnostic methods in pulmonary angiosarcoma: protocol for a scoping review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0531-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel Lim, Lea Harper, John Swiston |
| Abstract |
Angiosarcoma involving the lung can represent either primary or metastatic malignancy. Due to the rarity of this condition, knowledge surrounding the natural history and clinical presentation is scarce. The aim of this scoping review is to summarize the existing literature on pulmonary angiosarcoma, particularly as it pertains to the clinical presentation and ancillary tests used for diagnosis in addition to histopathology. We will conduct a systematic search using Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases. Two investigators will independently screen identified titles and abstracts to select articles reporting on pulmonary angiosarcoma. The data will be summarized in a narrative fashion and organized according to aspects of epidemiology, risk factors, clinical presentation, diagnostic methods, and treatment. Scoping reviews are increasingly used to synthesize the evidence on a particular topic, to identify gaps in the literature, and to determine if future systematic reviews are feasible. In order to improve the care of patients with angiosarcoma, earlier recognition and diagnosis is required. This review will be valuable for highlighting the range of clinical presentations and the role of imaging and other diagnostic tools in the diagnosis of metastatic and primary pulmonary angiosarcoma. PROSPERO registration: CRD42017059052. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
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 11 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,492,327
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,599
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,721
of 312,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#44
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 312,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.