↓ Skip to main content

A review of ablative techniques in the treatment of breast fibroadenomata

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
A review of ablative techniques in the treatment of breast fibroadenomata
Published in
Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40349-016-0045-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mirjam C. L. Peek, Muneer Ahmed, Sarah E. Pinder, Michael Douek

Abstract

Breast fibroadenomata (FAD) are benign lesions which occur in about 10 % of all women. Diagnosis is made by triple assessment (physical examination, imaging and/or histopathology/cytology). For a definitive diagnosis of FAD, the treatment is conservative unless the patient is symptomatic. For symptomatic patients, the lumps can be surgically excised or removed interventionally by vacuum-assisted mammotomy (VAM). Ablative techniques like high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryo-ablation and laser ablation have also been used for the treatment of FAD, providing a minimally invasive treatment without scarring or poor cosmesis. This review summarises current trials using minimally invasive ablative techniques in the treatment of breast FAD. A comprehensive review of studies using minimally invasive ablative techniques was performed. There are currently several trials completed or recruiting patients using HIFU, cryo-ablation and laser ablation in the treatment of breast FAD. The results look very promising but cannot be compared at this point due to heterogeneity between studies. Minimally invasive ablative techniques like HIFU, cryo-ablation and laser ablation are promising in the treatment of breast FAD. Future trials should be randomised and contain larger numbers of patients to determine the effectiveness of ablative techniques with more precision.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 10 26%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 42%
Engineering 3 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 8 21%
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 18 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound
#52
of 80 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,629
of 402,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 80 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 402,953 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.