| Title |
Imaging of the scrotum: beyond sonography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-017-0592-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gian Carlo Parenti, Francesco Feletti, Aldo Carnevale, Licia Uccelli, Melchiore Giganti |
| Abstract |
The aim of this article is to describe the role of second-level imaging techniques after an initial ultrasonography evaluation in the assessment of scrotal diseases. While ultrasonography remains central as the primary imaging modality for the evaluation of pathologic conditions of the scrotum, the role of magnetic resonance imaging continues to evolve: it can actually be valuable as a problem-solving tool when sonographic findings are equivocal or inconclusive. Magnetic resonance imaging of the scrotum may provide accurate detection and characterization of scrotal diseases, well depicting the precise location of scrotal masses (intratesticular or extratesticular) and reliably characterizing benign conditions simulating neoplastic processes, thus preventing unnecessary radical surgery. Advanced magnetic resonance techniques, most of all diffusion weighted imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy, play in the meanwhile a more significant role in evaluating scrotal diseases. • Multiparametric ultrasonography usually represents the initial imaging modality for approaching scrotal diseases. • MRI is well established as a problem-solving tool for inconclusive sonographic findings. • Advanced MRI techniques can be successfully applied in scrotal pathology assessment. • MRI is valuable in differentiating benign conditions from neoplastic processes. • CT plays a role in trauma assessment and cancer staging alongside PET/CT. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 47% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#8,064,660
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#482
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,591
of 481,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 481,719 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.