| Title |
Endocavitary contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): a novel problem solving technique
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-018-0601-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
G. T. Yusuf, C. Fang, D. Y. Huang, M. E. Sellars, A. Deganello, P. S. Sidhu |
| Abstract |
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a technique that has developed as an adjunct to conventional ultrasound. CEUS offers a number of benefits over conventional axial imaging with computerised tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, primarily as a "beside" test, without ionising radiation or the safety concerns associated with iodinated/gadolinium-based contrast agents. Intravascular use of ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) is widespread with extensive evidence for effective use. Despite this, the potential utility of UCAs in physiological and non-physiological cavities has not been fully explored. The possibilities for endocavitary uses of CEUS are described in this review based on a single-centre experience including CEUS technique and utility in confirming drain placement, as well as within the biliary system, urinary system, gastrointestinal tract and intravascular catheters. • CEUS offers an excellent safety profile, spatial resolution and is radiation free. • Endocavitary CEUS provides real-time imaging similar to fluoroscopy in a portable setting. • Endocavitary CEUS can define internal architecture of physiological cavities. • Endocavitary CEUS can confirm drain position in physiological and non-physiological cavities. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 58% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,971,225
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#607
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,694
of 333,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#22
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 333,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.