↓ Skip to main content

Retrospective comparison of measured stone size and posterior acoustic shadow width in clinical ultrasound images

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Urology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Retrospective comparison of measured stone size and posterior acoustic shadow width in clinical ultrasound images
Published in
World Journal of Urology, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00345-017-2156-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica C. Dai, Barbrina Dunmire, Kevan M. Sternberg, Ziyue Liu, Troy Larson, Jeff Thiel, Helena C. Chang, Jonathan D. Harper, Michael R. Bailey, Mathew D. Sorensen

Abstract

Posterior acoustic shadow width has been proposed as a more accurate measure of kidney stone size compared to direct measurement of stone width on ultrasound (US). Published data in humans to date have been based on a research using US system. Herein, we compared these two measurements in clinical US images. Thirty patient image sets where computed tomography (CT) and US images were captured less than 1 day apart were retrospectively reviewed. Five blinded reviewers independently assessed the largest stone in each image set for shadow presence and size. Shadow size was compared to US and CT stone sizes. Eighty percent of included stones demonstrated an acoustic shadow; 83% of stones without a shadow were ≤ 5 mm on CT. Average stone size was 6.5 ± 4.0 mm on CT, 10.3 ± 4.1 mm on US, and 7.5 ± 4.2 mm by shadow width. On average, US overestimated stone size by 3.8 ± 2.4 mm based on stone width (p < 0.001) and 1.0 ± 1.4 mm based on shadow width (p < 0.0098). Shadow measurements decreased misclassification of stones by 25% among three clinically relevant size categories (≤ 5, 5.1-10, > 10 mm), and by 50% for stones ≤ 5 mm. US overestimates stone size compared to CT. Retrospective measurement of the acoustic shadow from the same clinical US images is a more accurate reflection of true stone size than direct stone measurement. Most stones without a posterior shadow are ≤ 5 mm.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 5 23%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Researcher 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 45%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Unknown 9 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 January 2018.
All research outputs
#5,654,907
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#570
of 2,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,912
of 439,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#14
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 439,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.