↓ Skip to main content

Percutaneous renal tumour biopsy

Overview of attention for article published in Histopathology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Percutaneous renal tumour biopsy
Published in
Histopathology, September 2014
DOI 10.1111/his.12495
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The use of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy (RTB) as a diagnostic tool for the histological characterization of renal masses has increased dramatically within the last 30 years. This increased utilization has paralleled advances in imaging techniques and an evolving knowledge of the clinical value of nephron sparing surgery. Improved biopsy techniques using image guidance, coupled with the use of smaller gauge needles has led to a decrease in complication rates. Reports from series containing a large number of cases have shown the non-diagnostic rate of RTB to range from 4% to 21%. Re-biopsy has been shown to reduce this rate, while the use of molecular markers further improves diagnostic sensitivity. In parallel with refinements of the biopsy procedure, there has been a rapid expansion in our understanding of the complexity of renal cell neoplasia. The 2013 Vancouver Classification is the current classification for renal tumours, and contains five additional entities recognized as novel forms of renal malignancy. The diagnosis of tumour morphotype on RTB is usually achievable on routine histology; however, immunohistochemical studies may be of assistance in difficult cases. The morphology of the main tumour subtypes, based upon the Vancouver Classification, is described and differentiating features are discussed.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Portugal 1 6%
Chile 1 6%
Unknown 16 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 5 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 September 2014.
All research outputs
#8,829,613
of 26,809,610 outputs
Outputs from Histopathology
#1,372
of 3,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,779
of 258,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Histopathology
#12
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,809,610 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,636 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 258,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 72% of its contemporaries.