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 |
Comparison of power Doppler and thermography for the selection of thyroid nodules in which fine-needle aspiration biopsy is indicated*
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiologia Brasileira, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0100-3984.2014.0111 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria Lucia D'Arbo Alves, Manoel Henrique Cintra Gabarra |
| Abstract |
To compare two methods-power Doppler and thermography-for the analysis of nodule vascularization and subsequent selection of nodules to be biopsied. A total of 510 subjects with thyroid nodules were analyzed by power Doppler and submitted to fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB). Thirty-seven patients were submitted to nodule excision (29 due to carcinoma or suspected carcinoma and 8 by patient choice). Among those patients, power Doppler had raised the suspicion of malignancy in 39 lesions, compared with 48 for FNAB. Another group, comprising 110 patients, underwent thermography, which raised the suspicion of malignancy in 124 thyroid nodules, as did FNAB. Malignant nodules were excised in all 110 of those patients (95 underwent nodulectomy and 15 underwent thyroidectomy), malignancy being confirmed by intraoperative examination of frozen biopsy samples. In relation to the FNAB findings, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of power Doppler were 95.16%, 23.52%, 96.22%, 16.70%, and 89.51%, respectively, compared with 100%, 58.06%, 87.73%, 100%, and 89.51%, respectively, for thermography. Thermography was more precise than was power Doppler for the selection of thyroid nodules to be biopsied. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 85% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 85% |
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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Radiologia Brasileira
#303
of 394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#341,806
of 399,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiologia Brasileira
#23
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 394 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. 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 399,674 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 35 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.