To assess the efficacy of the ABC/2 method for calculating the volume of vestibular schwannomas as compared with 3-D planimetric method.
Retrospective.
Fifty eight cases of pathologically confirmed sporadic vestibular schwannomas (VS) were analyzed. Tumors volumes were calculated for each tumor twice, once through semiautomated 3-D volumetric method and subsequently through ABC/2 (AP × ML × CC/2) methodology after calculating the maximal tumor dimensions in anteroposterior (AP), coronal (ML), and craniocaudal (CC) dimensions. Tumor volumes were initially correlated as a group and subsequently by dividing them into three groups using the Hannover classification.
The two methodologies were highly correlated when tumors were analyzed as a group (rho = 0.913, p < 0.0001). In the sub-group analysis, tumor volumes were again strongly correlated for larger tumors (rho = 0.918, p < 0.0001) but the correlation progressively reduced as tumor volumes decreased.
Given the ease and universal accessibility of linear measurement applications, the ABC/2 methodology is a robust substitute for calculating tumor volumes, especially for larger tumors.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,277,571
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Otology & Neurotology
#1,433
of 3,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,019
of 313,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Otology & Neurotology
#23
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,745 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 313,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 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 69% of its contemporaries.
