↓ Skip to main content

Persistent left superior vena cava: Review of the literature, clinical implications, and relevance of alterations in thoracic central venous anatomy as pertaining to the general principles of central…

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Persistent left superior vena cava: Review of the literature, clinical implications, and relevance of alterations in thoracic central venous anatomy as pertaining to the general principles of central venous access device placement and venography in cancer patients
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1477-7819-9-173
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen P. Povoski, Hooman Khabiri

Abstract

Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) represents the most common congenital venous anomaly of the thoracic systemic venous return, occurring in 0.3% to 0.5% of individuals in the general population, and in up to 12% of individuals with other documented congential heart abnormalities. In this regard, there is very little in the literature that specifically addresses the potential importance of the incidental finding of PLSVC to surgeons, interventional radiologists, and other physicians actively involved in central venous access device placement in cancer patients. In the current review, we have attempted to comprehensively evaluate the available literature regarding PLSVC. Additionally, we have discussed the clinical implications and relevance of such congenital aberrancies, as well as of treatment-induced or disease-induced alterations in the anatomy of the thoracic central venous system, as they pertain to the general principles of successful placement of central venous access devices in cancer patients. Specifically regarding PLSVC, it is critical to recognize its presence during attempted central venous access device placement and to fully characterize the pattern of cardiac venous return (i.e., to the right atrium or to the left atrium) in any patient suspected of PLSVC prior to initiation of use of their central venous access device.

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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 18%
Student > Master 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 64%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 December 2011.
All research outputs
#15,240,835
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#613
of 2,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,932
of 243,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#13
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,038 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 243,693 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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 61% of its contemporaries.