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 |
Nasolacrimal Duct Mucocele: Case Report and Literature Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1055/s-0034-1366978 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fernanda Carneiro Corujeira de Britto, Vitor Veloso Rosier, Tovar Vicente Luz, Raquel Crisóstomo Lima Verde, Clara Mônica Figueiredo de Lima, Marcus Miranda Lessa |
| Abstract |
Introduction Mucoceles are benign expansive cystic formations, composed of a mucus-secreting epithelium (respiratory or pseudostratified epithelium). Nasolacrimal mucocele occurs in a small proportion of children with nasolacrimal duct obstruction and is characterized by a cystic mass in the medial canthus with dilation of the nasolacrimal duct; although dacryocystoceles are rare in adults, they have been reported in patients with trachoma. Objective Discuss clinical aspects, diagnosis, and therapeutic management of mucocele of nasolacrimal duct based on literature review. Resumed Report The authors report a case of bilateral congenital nasolacrimal duct cysts in a 30-year-old man, identified as a tumor in the topography of both lacrimal sacs since birth without associated symptoms. The patient underwent successive surgical treatments, leading to recurrence of the tumor at the right side and recurrent local infections. Conclusion Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy has been increasingly used with good results and success rates similar to the external access. |
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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 45% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 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 21 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,409,030
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#223
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,134
of 313,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#16
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 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 645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 313,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 50% of its contemporaries.