| Title |
Histopathological and radiological reporting in rectal cancer: concepts and controversies, facts and fantasies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Techniques in Coloproctology, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10151-016-1555-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Balyasnikova, N. Haboubi, B. Moran, G. Brown |
| Abstract |
In rectal cancer patients, the stage of the disease, local spread and distant metastases status drive the treatment decisions to be made. Histopathology remains the gold standard, but preoperative staging, particularly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is pivotal for defining surgical planes and finding patients who could potentially benefit from preoperative regimes. Unfortunately, due to a lack of awareness, expertise and practise the quality of rectal cancer MRI and histopathology reporting varies among centres. This paper highlights the most important and frequently occurring radiological and histopathological discrepancies/mistakes to be aware of. |
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 | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 16% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 56% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 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 17 February 2017.
All research outputs
#8,045,639
of 25,603,577 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#698
of 1,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,014
of 421,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#20
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,603,577 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 1,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 421,539 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.