| Title |
Ultrasound of pediatric breast masses: what to do with lumps and bumps
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatric Radiology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00247-015-3402-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Natalie S. Valeur, Habib Rahbar, Teresa Chapman |
| Abstract |
The approach to breast masses in children differs from that in adults in many ways, including the differential diagnostic considerations, imaging algorithm and appropriateness of biopsy as a means of further characterization. Most pediatric breast masses are benign, either related to breast development or benign neoplastic processes. Biopsy is rarely needed and can damage the developing breast; thus radiologists must be familiar with the imaging appearance of common entities so that biopsies are judiciously recommended. The purpose of this article is to describe the imaging appearances of the normally developing pediatric breast as well as illustrate the imaging findings of a spectrum of diseases, including those that are benign (fibroadenoma, juvenile papillomatosis, pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia, gynecomastia, abscess and fat necrosis), malignant (breast carcinoma and metastases), and have variable malignant potential (phyllodes tumor). |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 25% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 64% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Psychology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
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 25 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,122,665
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#266
of 2,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,619
of 262,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#4
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 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 2,086 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. 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 262,678 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.