↓ Skip to main content

Solitary pulmonary nodule and 18F-FDG PET/CT. Part 2: accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and current recommendations*

Overview of attention for article published in Radiologia Brasileira, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
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.
Title
Solitary pulmonary nodule and 18F-FDG PET/CT. Part 2: accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and current recommendations*
Published in
Radiologia Brasileira, January 2016
DOI 10.1590/0100-3984.2014.0087
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcos Pretto Mosmann, Marcelle Alves Borba, Francisco Pires Negromonte de Macedo, Adriano de Araujo Lima Liguori, Arthur Villarim, Kenio Costa de Lima

Abstract

A solitary pulmonary nodule is a common, often incidental, radiographic finding. The investigation and differential diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules remain complex, because there are overlaps between the characteristics of benign and malignant processes. There are currently many strategies for evaluating solitary pulmonary nodules. The main objective is to identify benign lesions, in order to avoid exposing patients to the risks of invasive methods, and to detect cases of lung cancer accurately, in order to avoid delaying potentially curative treatment. The focus of this study was to review the evaluation of solitary pulmonary nodules, to discuss the current role of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography, addressing its accuracy and cost-effectiveness, and to detail the current recommendations for the examination in this scenario.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 14 88%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Unknown 14 88%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Radiologia Brasileira
#141
of 394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,384
of 399,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiologia Brasileira
#17
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 394 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 399,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.