↓ Skip to main content

Morphology of the distal thoracic duct and the right lymphatic duct in different head and neck pathologies: an imaging based study

Overview of attention for article published in Head & Face Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 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
Morphology of the distal thoracic duct and the right lymphatic duct in different head and neck pathologies: an imaging based study
Published in
Head & Face Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13005-016-0108-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ferdinand J. Kammerer, Benedikt Schlude, Michael A. Kuefner, Philipp Schlechtweg, Matthias Hammon, Michael Uder, Siegfried A. Schwab

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of head and neck pathologies on the detection rate, configuration and diameter of the thoracic duct (TD) and right lymphatic duct (RLD) in computed tomography (CT) of the head and neck. One hundred ninety-seven patients were divided into the subgroups "healthy", "benign disease" and "malignant disease". The interpretation of the images was performed at a slice thickness of 3 mm in the axial and coronal plane. In each case we looked for the distal part of the TD and RLD respectively and subsequently evaluated their configuration (tubular, sacciform, dendritic) as well as their maximum diameter and correlated the results with age, gender and diagnosis group. The detection rate in the study population was 81.2 % for the TD and 64.2 % for the RLD and did not differ significantly in any of the subgroups. The predominant configuration was tubular. The configuration distribution did not differ significantly between the diagnosis groups. The mean diameter of the TD was 4.79 ± 2.41 mm and that of the RLD was 3.98 ± 1.96 mm. No significant influence of a diagnosis on the diameter could be determined. There is no significant influence of head/neck pathologies on the CT detection rate, morphology or size of the TD and RLD. However our study emphasizes that both the RLD and the TD are detectable in the majority of routine head and neck CTs and therefore reading physicians and radiologists should be familiar with their various imaging appearances.

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 > Postgraduate 7 24%
Researcher 5 17%
Other 4 14%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 55%
Chemistry 2 7%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,449,393
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Head & Face Medicine
#183
of 334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,314
of 301,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Face Medicine
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 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 334 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 301,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.