↓ Skip to main content

FDG-PET/CT activity leads to the diagnosis of unsuspected TB: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
FDG-PET/CT activity leads to the diagnosis of unsuspected TB: a retrospective study
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3564-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolina Geadas, Carlos Acuna-Villaorduna, Gustavo Mercier, Mary B. Kleinman, C. Robert Horsburgh, Jerrold J. Ellner, Karen R. Jacobson

Abstract

Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection leads to latent or active tuberculosis (TB). Increased uptake on 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) has been reported in the lungs and lymph nodes of individuals with recent infection and active TB, but not in individuals without known recent exposure or suggestive symptoms. We describe five patients with lung nodules not suspected to be due to TB in whom abnormalities on FDG-PET/CT scans ultimately were attributed to TB infection. Patient records were searched using the words "positron emission tomography/computed tomography" and 24 codes for TB between 2004 and 2013. Patients with a diagnosis of TB and a PET/CT scan were included. Clinical and radiographic data were retrieved. PET/CT images were reviewed by an experienced radiologist. FDG-PET/CT scans revealed elevated FDG-uptake in lungs of five patients subsequently diagnosed with active (n = 3) or clinically inactive (n = 2) tuberculosis. Uptake magnitude was unrelated to disease activity. These findings suggest that tuberculosis latency may include periods of percolating inflammation of uncertain relationship to future disease risk.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 41%
Psychology 3 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#9,290,263
of 15,915,110 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,478
of 3,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,504
of 276,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,915,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,488 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 276,773 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them