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 |
Biofilm’s Role in Chronic Cholesteatomatous Otitis Media
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1177/0194599816630548 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jacopo Galli, Lea Calò, Monica Giuliani, Bruno Sergi, Daniela Lucidi, Duino Meucci, Ezio Bassotti, Maurizio Sanguinetti, Gaetano Paludetti |
| Abstract |
Cholesteatoma is a destructive lesion involving the temporal bone, which may induce severe complications due to its expansion and erosion of adjacent structures. Bacterial biofilm plays a crucial role in the pathogenesis of many otolaryngologic inflammatory/infectious chronic diseases. In this pilot study, we investigated, by means of cultural examination and with scanning electron microscope, the presence of bacterial biofilm in a series of samples from the epitympanic and mastoid region in patients affected by cholesteatoma and from the promontory region in patients with healthy mucosa who were undergoing to stapes surgery. The preliminary data support the association between biofilm and cholesteatoma (81.3% of the cases) and allow us to hypothesize that keratinized matrix of cholesteatoma may represent the ideal substrate for biofilm colonization and survival; this finding is consistent with the clinical course of aural cholesteatoma, characterized by recurrent exacerbations and recalcitrant course. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 93% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Unknown | 7 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 44% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 2016.
All research outputs
#4,608,356
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
#509
of 4,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,665
of 312,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
#10
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,086 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 87% 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 312,604 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.