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 |
Radial endobronchial ultrasound in diagnosing peripheral lung lesions in a high tuberculosis setting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12890-015-0089-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adrian Chan, Anantham Devanand, Su Ying Low, Mariko Siyue Koh |
| Abstract |
Current data for the utility of radial endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) in investigating peripheral lung lesions (PLLs) has been restricted to populations with low pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) incidence. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic utility of radial EBUS with guide sheath in the diagnosis of peripheral lung lesions in Singapore, a high TB incidence setting. A post-hoc database analysis was performed. 123 consecutive patients with computed tomographic evidence of PLLs who underwent radial EBUS guided bronchoscopy were included. The final diagnosis was malignancy in 76 cases and benign in 44 cases. Radial EBUS guided bronchoscopy had a sensitivity of 65.8 % for malignancy, positive predictive value of 100 %, negative predictive value of 62.9 %, and a diagnostic accuracy of 82.5 %. 22 patients had a final diagnosis of pulmonary TB. The diagnostic sensitivity for pulmonary TB was 77.3 %, with a positive predictive value of 100 %, negative predictive value of 95.2 % and a diagnostic accuracy of 95.8 %. Overall, 58.8 % of pulmonary TB cases relied on histology to make an early diagnosis. Radial EBUS guided bronchosopy is useful in investigating PLLs in a high TB incidence setting. Our data also suggests that radial EBUS is a more rapid diagnosis technique for tuberculous lesions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 11% |
| Argentina | 1 | 11% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 11% |
| Turkey | 1 | 11% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 September 2015.
All research outputs
#5,544,482
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#365
of 1,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,338
of 266,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#7
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,917 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 well, scoring higher than 80% 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 266,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.