↓ Skip to main content

The ophthalmic natural history of paediatric craniopharyngioma: a long-term review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuro-Oncology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
The ophthalmic natural history of paediatric craniopharyngioma: a long-term review
Published in
Journal of Neuro-Oncology, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11060-014-1600-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evangelos Drimtzias, Kevin Falzon, Susan Picton, Irfan Jeeva, Danielle Guy, Olwyn Nelson, Ian Simmons

Abstract

We present our experience over the long-term of monitoring of visual function in children with craniopharyngioma. Our study involves an analysis of all paediatric patients with craniopharyngioma younger than 16 at the time of diagnosis and represents a series of predominantly sub-totally resected tumours. Visual data, of multiple modality, of the paediatric patients was collected. Twenty patients were surveyed. Poor prognostic indicators of the visual outcome and rate of recurrence were assessed. Severe visual loss and papilledema at the time of diagnosis were more common in children under the age of 6. In our study visual signs, tumour calcification and optic disc atrophy at presentation are predictors of poor visual outcome with the first two applying only in children younger than 6. In contrast with previous reports, preoperative visual field (VF) defects and type of surgery were not documented as prognostic indicators of poor postoperative visual acuity (VA) and VF. Contrary to previous reports calcification at diagnosis, type of surgery and preoperative VF defects were not found to be associated with tumour recurrence. Local recurrence is common. Younger age at presentation is associated with a tendency to recur. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains the recommended means of follow-up in patients with craniopharyngioma.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 8%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 17%
Other 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 25%
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 20 November 2014.
All research outputs
#20,243,777
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#2,565
of 2,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,494
of 236,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuro-Oncology
#35
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,964 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 236,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.