↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility study of computed tomography colonography using limited bowel preparation at normal and low-dose levels study

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, June 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Feasibility study of computed tomography colonography using limited bowel preparation at normal and low-dose levels study
Published in
European Radiology, June 2007
DOI 10.1007/s00330-007-0668-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasper Florie, Rogier E. van Gelder, Michiel P. Schutter, Adrienne van Randen, Henk W. Venema, Steven de Jager, Victor P. M. van der Hulst, Anna Prent, Shandra Bipat, Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, Lubbertus C. Baak, Jaap Stoker

Abstract

The purpose was to evaluate low-dose CT colonography without cathartic cleansing in terms of image quality, polyp visualization and patient acceptance. Sixty-one patients scheduled for colonoscopy started a low-fiber diet, lactulose and amidotrizoic-acid for fecal tagging 2 days prior to the CT scan (standard dose, 5.8-8.2 mSv). The original raw data of 51 patients were modified and reconstructed at simulated 2.3 and 0.7 mSv levels. Two observers evaluated the standard dose scan regarding image quality and polyps. A third evaluated the presence of polyps at all three mSv levels in a blinded prospective way. All observers were blinded to the reference standard: colonoscopy. At three times patients were given questionnaires relating to their experiences and preference. Image quality was sufficient in all patients, but significantly lower in the cecum, sigmoid and rectum. The two observers correctly identified respectively 10/15 (67%) and 9/15 (60%) polyps > or =10 mm, with 5 and 8 false-positive lesions (standard dose scan). Dose reduction down to 0.7 mSv was not associated with significant changes in diagnostic value (polyps > or =10 mm). Eighty percent of patients preferred CT colonography and 13% preferred colonoscopy (P<0.001). CT colonography without cleansing is preferred to colonoscopy and shows sufficient image quality and moderate sensitivity, without impaired diagnostic value at dose-levels as low as 0.7 mSv.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Other 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,269,121
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#356
of 4,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,858
of 70,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,106 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 70,451 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.