You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Detection of Perforators for Free Flap Planning Using Smartphone Thermal Imaging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1097/prs.0000000000004126 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicolás Pereira, Diego Valenzuela, Günther Mangelsdorff, Matías Kufeke, Ricardo Roa |
| Abstract |
Design and preoperative planning of microsurgical flaps are fundamental steps for successful surgery. Currently, computed tomographic angiography is considered the gold standard, and new technologies such as thermography could complement its usefulness. The aim of this study was to determine the concordance between thermographic images obtained with a smartphone thermal camera and computed tomographic angiography for detecting perforators using the anterolateral thigh flap area as a model. A concordance study of diagnostic tests was performed in patients who underwent limb reconstruction in 2016. Perforators identified in thigh computed tomographic angiographic images and hotspots on thermographic images obtained by means of the FLIR ONE smartphone camera were compared based on the distance from the anterior superior iliac spine. The authors studied 20 patients, including 38 anterolateral thigh flap territories in total, and identified 117 perforators by computed tomographic angiography and 120 hotspots by thermography. The average mean distance from the anterior superior iliac spine using these methods was 193.14 mm, and the mean difference in distance was 2.37 mm, with both measurements being obtained within a radius of 20 mm, with a concordance kappa index of 0.975 (p < 0.001). Thermographic imaging presented a sensitivity of 100 percent and a specificity of 98 percent in detecting perforators. Thermographic images obtained with a smartphone thermal camera have a high concordance with the method considered the gold standard for perforator detection. In addition, its sensitivity and specificity are comparable to those of computed tomographic angiography, which makes it a very useful method for mapping perforators in free flap planning. Diagnostic, II. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 16 | 42% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 13% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Finland | 1 | 3% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Egypt | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 61% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 32% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
| Scientists | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 16 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,736,085
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
#731
of 10,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,261
of 344,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
#29
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 344,853 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.