↓ Skip to main content

Cross-sectional imaging in cancers of the head and neck: how we review and report

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Imaging, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Cross-sectional imaging in cancers of the head and neck: how we review and report
Published in
Cancer Imaging, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40644-016-0075-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dechen Wangmo Tshering Vogel, Harriet C. Thoeny

Abstract

Cancer of the head and neck is the sixth most frequent cancer worldwide and associated with significant morbidity. The head and neck area is complex and divided into various anatomical and functional subunits. Imaging is performed by cross-sectional modalities like computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound and positron emission tomography-computed tomography, usually with fluorine-18-deoxy-D-glucose. Therefore, knowledge of the cross-sectional anatomy is very important. This article seeks to give an overview of the various cross-sectional imaging modalities used in the evaluation of head and neck cancers. It briefly describes the anatomy of the extracranial head and neck and the role of imaging as well as the imaging appearance of tumours and their extension to lymph nodes, bone and surrounding tissue. The advantages and disadvantages as well as basic requirements of the various modalities are described along with ways of optimizing imaging quality. A general guideline for prescription of the various modalities is given. Pitfalls are many and varied and can be due to anatomical variation, due to pathology which can be misinterpreted and technical due to peculiarities of the various imaging modalities. Knowledge of these pitfalls can help to avoid misinterpretation. The important points to be mentioned while reporting are also enumerated.

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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 16%
Other 12 10%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 26 22%
Unknown 30 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Unspecified 3 3%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 36 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 August 2018.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#290
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,913
of 381,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 381,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 58% of its contemporaries.