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 |
Glioblastoma multiform with ipsilateral carotid artery stenosis: carotid artery stent promote tumor growth?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12957-016-0782-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ziqi Xu, Benyan Luo, Qidong Wang, Zhiyi Peng, Hui Liang |
| Abstract |
Ischemic stroke and glioblastoma multiforme have similar features on anatomic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and thus may require a surgical biopsy for a definitive diagnosis. A 55-year-old male complained of dysphasia for 4 weeks and continuous deterioration for 5 days. Cerebral infarction was considered based on MRI, which showed hyperintensity at the border zone of the left hemisphere, and computed tomography angiography (CTA) showed left carotid artery severe stenosis. The patient underwent placement of a left carotid artery stent, and his symptoms recurred 2 months after carotid artery stent (CAS). MRI showed multiple ring-enhanced lesions in the left temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes accompanied by massive brain edema. The final pathologic diagnosis was glioblastoma multiforme. Although there is no evidence that stent therapy for carotid artery stenosis will worsen an ipsilateral glioblastoma, we should be careful to perform surgeries involving carotid artery stents when the patient has a glioblastoma. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 38% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 38% |
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 08 February 2016.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#948
of 2,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,631
of 406,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#18
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,145 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 406,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.