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 |
Primary mucinous cystadenoma of the spermatic cord within the inguinal canal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diagnostic Pathology, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1746-1596-7-139 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jee-Yeon Kim, Young-Taek Lee, Hyun-Jeong Kang, Chang-Hun Lee |
| Abstract |
We report a hitherto not documented case of primary mucinous cystadenoma arising in the spermatic cord within the right inguinal canal of a78-year-old man. The tumor was painless, hard and mobile. A computed tomography scan on the pelvis revealed an oval shaped, low attenuation mass, measuring 5.0x2.5x2.1 cm, that was present adjacent to the vas deferens. Grossly, the excised mass was multicystic mucinous tumor, filled with thick mucoid materials. Microscopically, the cystic wall was irregularly thickened. The cystic epithelium commonly showed short papillae lined by a single layer of columnar to cuboidal mucinous epithelial cells without significant stratification or cytologic atypia. Goblet cells were also frequently present. Immunohistochemically, the neoplastic cells showed positive reaction to carcinoembryonic antigen, cytokeratin 20, CDX2, epithelial membrane antigen, and CD15. However, they were negative for PAX8 and Wilms' tumor 1 protein. Pathological diagnosis was a papillary mucinous cystadenoma of the spermatic cord. Although mucinous cystadenoma in this area is extremely rare, it is important that these lesions be recognized clinically and pathologically in order to avoid unnecessary radical surgery. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 14% |
| Researcher | 1 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 14% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 29% |
| Psychology | 1 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
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 08 October 2012.
All research outputs
#18,317,537
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#755
of 1,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,064
of 172,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#14
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 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 1,118 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 172,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.