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 |
Dynamic contrast enhanced CT in nodule characterization: How we review and report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Imaging, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40644-016-0074-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nagmi R. Qureshi, Andrew Shah, Rosemary J. Eaton, Ken Miles, Fiona J. Gilbert, on behalf of the Sputnik investigators |
| Abstract |
Incidental indeterminate solitary pulmonary nodules (SPN) that measure less than 3 cm in size are an increasingly common finding on computed tomography (CT) worldwide. Once identified there are a number of imaging strategies that can be performed to help with nodule characterization. These include interval CT, dynamic contrast enhanced computed tomography (DCE-CT), (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography ((18)F-FDG-PET-CT). To date the most cost effective and efficient non-invasive test or combination of tests for optimal nodule characterization has yet to be determined.DCE-CT is a functional test that involves the acquisition of a dynamic series of images of a nodule before and following the administration of intravenous iodinated contrast medium. This article provides an overview of the current indications and limitations of DCE- CT in nodule characterization and a systematic approach to how to perform, analyse and interpret a DCE-CT scan. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| Cyprus | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 24% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 50% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 December 2018.
All research outputs
#7,960,693
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#106
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,150
of 377,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 377,573 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 66% of its contemporaries.