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 |
Navigating MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy: optimizing the process and avoiding technical pitfalls
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1586/14737140.2016.1131155 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kae Jack Tay, Rajan T. Gupta, Ardeshir R. Rastinehad, Efrat Tsivian, Stephen J. Freedland, Judd W. Moul, Thomas J. Polascik |
| Abstract |
Multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) is widely used in the detection and characterization of clinically- significant prostate cancer. MRI-TRUS (trans-rectal ultrasound) fusion biopsy is an in-office procedure that promises to empower urologists to successfully target these MRI-visible lesions for histological confirmation. We describe the moving parts in the process and discuss methods to optimize biopsy outcomes. mpMRI is highly technical and reader-dependent. The acquisition of US images to generate a valid 3D US model and subsequent registration and fusion requires the urologist to attain equilibrium of probe position and pressure to achieve maximum registration accuracy. Environmental, medical and engineering measures can be undertaken to improve targeting accuracy. The art and skill of "hitting" a visual target involves real-time recognition and adjustment for potential errors/ mis-registration in the fusion guide. A multi-disciplinary team effort is critical to improve all steps of the procedure. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 27 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 29% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 50% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
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 20 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,441,836
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy
#738
of 1,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,477
of 298,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy
#17
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,052 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 298,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.