↓ Skip to main content

Voluntary Breath-hold Technique for Reducing Heart Dose in Left Breast Radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Visualized Experiments, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
104 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.
Article details
Title
Voluntary Breath-hold Technique for Reducing Heart Dose in Left Breast Radiotherapy
Published in
Journal of Visualized Experiments, July 2014
DOI 10.3791/51578
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Breath-holding techniques reduce the amount of radiation received by cardiac structures during tangential-field left breast radiotherapy. With these techniques, patients hold their breath while radiotherapy is delivered, pushing the heart down and away from the radiotherapy field. Despite clear dosimetric benefits, these techniques are not yet in widespread use. One reason for this is that commercially available solutions require specialist equipment, necessitating not only significant capital investment, but often also incurring ongoing costs such as a need for daily disposable mouthpieces. The voluntary breath-hold technique described here does not require any additional specialist equipment. All breath-holding techniques require a surrogate to monitor breath-hold consistency and whether breath-hold is maintained. Voluntary breath-hold uses the distance moved by the anterior and lateral reference marks (tattoos) away from the treatment room lasers in breath-hold to monitor consistency at CT-planning and treatment setup. Light fields are then used to monitor breath-hold consistency prior to and during radiotherapy delivery.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Slovenia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 102 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 18%
Student > Master 17 16%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 25 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 14%
Physics and Astronomy 11 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 27 26%
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 12 December 2014.
All research outputs
#24,754,523
of 34,361,833 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Visualized Experiments
#6,309
of 11,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,949
of 275,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Visualized Experiments
#124
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,361,833 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,646 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 275,291 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.