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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Guidelines for Radiographic Imaging of Cranial Neuropathies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ear, Nose & Throat Journal, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1177/0145561317096010-1106 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aliasgher Khaku, Vijay Patel, Thomas Zacharia, David Goldenberg, Johnathan McGinn |
| Abstract |
Disruption of the complex pathways of the 12 cranial nerves can occur at any site along their course, and many, varied pathologic processes may initially manifest as dysfunction and neuropathy. Radiographic imaging (computed topography or magnetic resonance imaging) is frequently used to evaluate cranial neuropathies; however, indications for imaging and imaging method of choice vary considerably between the cranial nerves. The purpose of this review is to provide an analysis of the diagnostic yield and the most clinically appropriate means to evaluate cranial neuropathies using radiographic imaging. Using the PubMed MEDLINE NCBI database, a total of 49,079 articles' results were retrieved on September 20, 2014. Scholarly articles that discuss the etiology, incidence, and use of imaging in the context of evaluation and diagnostic yield of the 12 cranial nerves were evaluated for the purposes of this review. We combined primary research, guidelines, and best practice recommendations to create a practical framework for the radiographic evaluation of cranial neuropathies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 26% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 15 March 2023.
All research outputs
#3,055,083
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Ear, Nose & Throat Journal
#52
of 2,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,115
of 326,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ear, Nose & Throat Journal
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,049 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 326,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them