↓ Skip to main content

Image-guided minimally invasive treatment for small renal cell carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, April 2018
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 (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Image-guided minimally invasive treatment for small renal cell carcinoma
Published in
Insights into Imaging, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13244-018-0607-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miltiadis E. Krokidis, Panagiotis Kitrou, Stavros Spiliopoulos, Dimitrios Karnabatidis, Konstantinos Katsanos

Abstract

Surgical partial nephrectomy is still considered as the "gold standard" for the definitive management of small malignant renal masses, whereas treatment with image-guided percutaneous ablation is still mainly reserved for those patients who cannot undergo nephron-sparing surgical resection due to advanced age, underlying comorbidities or compromised renal function. Nonetheless, the recent evidence that underlines the long-term oncological equipoise of percutaneous ablation methods with surgical resection in combination with the reduced complication rate and cost supports the use of an image-guided minimally invasive approach as a first-line treatment. The purpose of this review is to offer an overview of the most widely used percutaneous renal ablation treatments (radiofrequency, microwave and cryoablation) with a focus on their main technical aspects and application techniques for curative ablation of small renal cell carcinoma (stage cT1a). The authors also provide a critical narrative of the relevant medical literature with an emphasis on outcomes of comparative effectiveness research, and appraise the percutaneous methods compared to surgery in the context of evidence-based practice and future research studies. • RCC is a common cancer and is increasingly detected incidentally at early stages. • There is long-term oncological equipoise of percutaneous ablation compared to surgical resection. • Large-scale trials are required to produce Level 1a evidence.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 14 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Unknown 16 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 14 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,057,405
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#238
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,776
of 332,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#7
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 332,993 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 72% of its contemporaries.