| Title |
Pulsatile Tinnitus: Differential Diagnosis and Radiological Work-Up
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Radiology Reports, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40134-017-0199-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sjoert A. H. Pegge, Stefan C. A. Steens, Henricus P. M. Kunst, Frederick J. A. Meijer |
| Abstract |
Identification of the underlying cause of pulsatile tinnitus is important for treatment decision making and for prognosis estimation. For this, an adequate diagnostic imaging strategy is crucial. Both CT and MRI can be useful, and in general, these modalities provide complementary diagnostic information. The scanning protocol can be optimized based on the estimated a priori chance for finding specific pathology, or the need to rule out more rare but clinical significant disease. In recent years, dynamic CTA, also referred to as 4D-CTA, has become available as a new technique that enables non-invasive evaluation of hemodynamics for the detection, classification, and follow-up of vascular malformations. The value of different diagnostic imaging modalities in the work-up of pulsatile tinnitus is discussed in relation to the differential diagnosis. Furthermore, imaging findings of different diseases are presented, both for CT and MRI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 States | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 94 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 24% |
| Unknown | 26 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 46% |
| Engineering | 6 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 33 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 11 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,257,173
of 24,366,830 outputs
Outputs from Current Radiology Reports
#6
of 81 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,887
of 426,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Radiology Reports
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,366,830 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 81 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 426,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them