↓ Skip to main content

Penetrating Colorectal Injuries: Diagnostic Performance of Multidetector CT with Trajectography.

Overview of attention for article published in Radiology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Penetrating Colorectal Injuries: Diagnostic Performance of Multidetector CT with Trajectography.
Published in
Radiology, May 2016
DOI 10.1148/radiol.2015152335
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Purpose To determine the diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography (CT) with trajectography for penetrating colorectal injuries. Materials and Methods This institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant study was a 6-year blinded retrospective review by two independent readers of 182 consecutive patients who preoperatively underwent 40- or 64-row multidetector CT for penetrating torso trauma below the diaphragm and had surgically confirmed findings. Colorectal perforation was present in 42 patients. Trajectory analysis with postprocessing software was used for all studies. Additional signs evaluated were rectal contrast agent leak, collections of extruded fecal material, mural defect, wall thickening, abnormal enhancement, free fluid or stranding, and free air. The quality of the colorectal contrast agent administration was recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), and Cohen κ were determined. Results In patients with rectal contrast agent administration (n = 151), AUCs were 0.90-0.91, which indicated excellent accuracy. Trajectory was sensitive (88%-91%). For single wounds (n = 104), sensitivity of trajectory was 96% for both readers, but was only 80% for multiple wounds (n = 47). Contrast agent leak was highly specific (96%-98%), but insensitive (42%-46%). Improved diagnostic performance was observed in patients with poor colonic distension or opacification. Accuracy remained high (AUC, 0.86-0.99) in the group without rectal contrast agent administration (n = 31). Conclusion Trajectory had excellent sensitivity, while rectal contrast agent leak was specific but insensitive. Sensitivity of trajectory was lower for multiple wounds. Accuracy remained high in patients without rectal contrast agent administration. (©) RSNA, 2016.

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 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 25 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 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 16%
Student > Master 4 16%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 76%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Unknown 3 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 29 November 2021.
All research outputs
#4,883,472
of 28,731,329 outputs
Outputs from Radiology
#3,865
of 13,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,490
of 319,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiology
#30
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,731,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 319,223 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 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 62% of its contemporaries.