↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of fine needle aspiration biopsy in oral cavity and head and neck region with different stains techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Oral Research, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Evaluation of fine needle aspiration biopsy in oral cavity and head and neck region with different stains techniques
Published in
Brazilian Oral Research, June 2015
DOI 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2015.vol29.0080
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Paula Candido dos Santos, Norberto Nobuo Sugaya, Décio dos Santos Pinto, Celso Augusto Lemos

Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate the Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy in different staining techniques in nodular lesions of the oral cavity and head and neck region, as their sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, staining with Panoptic, Papanicolaou and Hematoxylin-Eosin (H&E) stains. 46 patients who sought the Clinic of the Discipline of Clinical Stomatology at FOUSP were selected consecutively, with nodular lesions in the oral cavity and head and neck region. The material obtained by FNAB was sent on 6 different slides, stained by the method of Panoptic, Papanicolaou and H&E, to the same pathologist only with the clinical diagnosis. After the final report of FNAB, the biopsy report was issued, serving as gold standard. After the calculations, the results of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for Panoptic staining were 28.6%, 76% and 15.4%, respectively. The result of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for Papanicolaou staining were 71.4%, 76.7% and 23.3%, respectively. The result of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for H&E staining were 82.1%, 23.3%, 28.6%, respectively. We can conclude, according to the methodology of this study that, H&E and Papanicolaou stains showed the same sensitivity of diagnosing malignant neoplasms. H&E stain showed a better specificity for diagnosing benign neoplasms, compared with Papanicolaou and Panoptic stains. H&E stain showed better accuracy, to give definitive diagnosis, followed by Papanicolaou and Panoptic stains.

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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 20%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Professor 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 10%
Unknown 5 50%
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 22 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#194
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,212
of 264,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 264,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.