↓ Skip to main content

Intracranial meningeal melanocytoma diagnosed using an interdisciplinary approach: a case report and review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Intracranial meningeal melanocytoma diagnosed using an interdisciplinary approach: a case report and review of the literature
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13256-018-1725-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shoko Gamoh, Takaya Tsuno, Hironori Akiyama, Shinya Kotaki, Tamaki Nakanishi, Kaname Tsuji, Hiroaki Yoshida, Kimishige Shimizutani

Abstract

Meningeal melanocytoma is a rare pigmented tumor arising from leptomeningeal melanocytes. Patients with this tumor might initially consult a dentist because a mass lesion in Meckel's cave could manifest as dental pain and malocclusion, thereby mimicking temporomandibular disorder. The diagnostic approach, especially using imaging modalities, would be challenging in such cases unless an interdisciplinary approach is used. Here, we report a case of a 39-year-old Japanese man who had a history of pain and numbness on the left side of his face and malocclusion for 3 months before the initial visit. The diagnosis was primary intracranial meningeal melanocytoma arising from Meckel's cave. The process by which the final diagnosis of meningeal melanocytoma was reached highlights the importance of collaboration between the medical and dental disciplines. This case also demonstrates that meningeal melanocytoma has a specific signal pattern on magnetic resonance imaging, including high signal intensity on T1-weighted images and low signal intensity on T2-weighted images.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 10 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 38%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Psychology 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,640,437
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#2,287
of 3,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,208
of 329,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#48
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 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 3,963 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 329,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.