↓ Skip to main content

Lasers for nevi: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Lasers in Medical Science, December 2014
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 (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Lasers for nevi: a review
Published in
Lasers in Medical Science, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10103-014-1697-y
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A nevus is described as a benign, often pigmented, skin growth that can be congenital or acquired. Different types of nevi are located at different depths within the skin. Traditional treatments for nevi include topical treatments, dermabrasion, and excision, which are generally ineffective, invasive, and often result in scars and dyspigmentation. Lately, laser therapy has been used as an alternative. Based on the theory of selective photothermolysis, melanin can be specifically targeted, minimizing adverse effects and increasing effectiveness of laser treatments. Several types of lasers and lights have been studied for this purpose without a concise agreement as to which is the best. In general, quality-switched lasers are preferred for the treatment of pigmented lesions. However, there is controversy about this therapy because certain nevi may have malignant potential. This article serves as a comprehensive review of available laser treatments for nevi and discusses the appropriate measures that should be taken before and after laser therapy. Based on the reviewed literature, laser treatment has generally been proven to be a safe and effective therapy for nevi with minimal side effects.

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 3 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 39 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 %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 23%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 14 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 16 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

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 15 March 2024.
All research outputs
#21,224,062
of 32,300,445 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#818
of 1,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,524
of 399,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#11
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,300,445 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,702 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 399,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 67% of its contemporaries.