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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Thickened Pituitary Stalk Associated with a Mass in the Sphenoidal Sinus: An Alarm to Suspect Hypophysitis by Immunoglobulin G4?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1055/s-0034-1397333 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rafael Loch Batista, Luciano Silva Ramos, Valter Angelo Cescato, Nina Rosa Castro Musolino, Clarissa Groberio Borba, Gilberto Ochman Silva, Lilian Hupfeld Moreno, Malebranche Bernardo Carneiro Cunha Neto |
| Abstract |
Introduction Hypophysitis is a chronic inflammation of the pituitary gland of complex and still incompletely defined pathogenesis. It belongs to the group of non-hormone-secreting sellar masses, sharing with them comparable clinical presentation and radiographic appearance. Objectives Describe the case of immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-related hypophysitis presenting as a mass in the sphenoid sinus. Resumed Report A 40-year-old Brazilian man had a diagnosis of central diabetes insipidus since 2001 associated with pituitary insufficiency. Pituitary magnetic resonance imaging revealed a centered pituitary stalk with focal nodular thickening and the presence of heterogeneous materials inside the sphenoid sinus. The patient was treated with testosterone replacement therapy. Laboratory results revealed increased IgG4 serum. Conclusion IgG4-related hypophysitis should be considered in patients with pituitary insufficiency associated with sellar mass and/or thickened pituitary stalk. IgG4 serum measurement for early diagnosis of IgG4-related hypophysitis should be performed. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 18% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 64% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
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 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,288,585
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#305
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,493
of 257,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 257,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.