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 |
Evidence-based medicine and clinical fluorodeoxyglucose PET/MRI in oncology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Imaging, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40644-015-0053-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kenneth Miles, Liam McQueen, Stanley Ngai, Phillip Law |
| Abstract |
Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging (PET/MRI) is a hybrid of two technologies each with its own evidence for clinical effectiveness. This article amalgamates evidence for clinical effectiveness of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT and MRI as separate modalities with current evidence for hybrid PET/MRI and considers whether such an approach might provide a stronger case for the clinical use of PET/MRI at an earlier stage.Because links between diagnostic accuracy and health outcomes have already been established for FDG-PET/CT in the investigation of suspected residual or recurrent malignancies, evidence showing improved diagnostic performance and therapeutic impact from the use of PET/MRI as an alternative would imply clinical effectiveness of this modality for this application. A meta-analysis of studies comparing FDG-PET/CT to MRI in patients with suspected residual disease or recurrence of tumours indicates complementary roles for these modalities. PET demonstrates greater sensitivity for recurrence within lymph nodes whereas MRI is more effective that PET/CT in the detection of skeletal and hepatic recurrence. A review of studies assessing therapeutic impact of PET/MRI suggests a greater likelihood for change in clinical management when PET/MRI is used for assessment of suspected residual or recurrent disease rather than tumour staging.Supplementing the evidence-base for FDG-PET/MRI with studies that compare the components of this hybrid technology deployed separately indicates that FDG-PET/MRI is likely to be clinical effective for the investigation of patients with a range of suspected residual or recurrent cancers. This indication should therefore be prioritised for further health technology assessment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 26% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
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 30 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#194
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,250
of 392,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 392,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.