↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of preoperative SPECT/CT combined with lymphoscintigraphy vs. lymphoscintigraphy for sentinel lymph node excision in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness of preoperative SPECT/CT combined with lymphoscintigraphy vs. lymphoscintigraphy for sentinel lymph node excision in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00259-014-2771-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingo Stoffels, Markus Müller, Marie Henrike Geisel, Julia Leyh, Thorsten Pöppel, Dirk Schadendorf, Joachim Klode

Abstract

Malignant melanoma has become a major growing interdisciplinary problem in public health worldwide. Sentinel lymph node excision (SLNE) in conjunction with preoperative SPECT/CT is considered the most sensitive and specific staging test for the detection of micrometastatic melanoma in regional lymph nodes. Among patients with clinically lymph node-negative melanoma, the use of SPECT/CT-aided SLNE compared with SLNE alone has been found to be associated with a higher frequency of metastatic involvement and a higher rate of disease-free survival. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of SLNE with preoperative SPECT/CT for detecting sentinel lymph nodes versus that of standard SLNE with preoperative lymphoscintigraphy from a single-institution database.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Researcher 5 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 57%
Computer Science 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 24%
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 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#16,042,980
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#1,980
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,087
of 228,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#25
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 228,386 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.