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 |
3D photography is a reliable method of measuring infantile haemangioma volume over time
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pediatric Surgery (Science Direct), April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.04.013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah A. Robertson, Roy M. Kimble, Kristen J. Storey, Emma L. Gee Kee, Kellie A. Stockton |
| Abstract |
Infantile haemangiomas are common lesions of infancy. With the development of novel treatments utilised to accelerate their regression, there is a need for a method of assessing these lesions over time. Volume is an ideal assessment method because of its quantifiable nature. This study investigated whether 3D photography is a valid tool for measuring the volume of infantile haemangiomas over time. Thirteen children with infantile haemangiomas presenting to the Vascular Anomalies Clinic, Royal Children's Hospital/Lady Cilento Children's Hospital treated with propranolol were included in the study. Lesion volume was assessed using 3D photography at presentation, one month and three months follow up. Intrarater reliability was determined by retracing all images several months after the initial mapping. Interrater reliability of the 3D camera software was determined by two investigators, blinded to each other's results, independently assessing infantile haemangioma volume. Lesion volume decreased significantly between presentation and three-month follow-up (p<0.001). Volume intra- and interrater reliability were excellent with ICC 0.991 (95% CI 0.982, 0.995) and 0.978 (95% CI 0.955, 0.989), respectively. This study demonstrates images taken with the 3D LifeViz™ camera and lesion volume calculated with Dermapix® software is a reliable method for assessing infantile haemangioma volume over time. |
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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
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 02 October 2016.
All research outputs
#15,354,680
of 25,658,541 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pediatric Surgery (Science Direct)
#2,802
of 4,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,220
of 314,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pediatric Surgery (Science Direct)
#18
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,541 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 4,621 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 314,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 64% of its contemporaries.