| Title |
HistoScanningTM to Detect and Characterize Prostate Cancer—a Review of Existing Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Urology Reports, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11934-017-0747-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James S. Wysock, Alex Xu, Clement Orczyk, Samir S. Taneja |
| Abstract |
The widely acknowledged limitations of the standard prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic paradigm have provided an impetus to explore novel imaging modalities to diagnose, localize, and risk stratify PCa. As the body of literature focused on HistoScanning™(HS) grows, there is need for a comprehensive review of the clinical efficacy of this technology. Eighteen original, English language articles were found to adequately study the use of HistoScanning™ for prostate cancer diagnosis in the clinical setting. The articles were found by conducting a bibliographic search of PubMed in April 2017 in addition to utilizing references. The studies are divided into four groups based on study design. Study methods and quantitative data are summarized for each of the relevant articles. The results are synthesized to evaluate the utility of HistoScanning™ for the purpose of diagnosing PCa. Despite the promise of early pilot studies, there is a lack of consistent results across a number of further investigations of HistoScanning™. This becomes increasingly evident as study size increases. As various other modern diagnostic modalities continue to develop, the future of HistoScanning™, both alone and in conjunction with these technologies, remains unclear. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 25% |
| Researcher | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 56% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
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 15 November 2018.
All research outputs
#17,918,662
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Current Urology Reports
#492
of 593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,495
of 327,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Urology Reports
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 327,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.