↓ Skip to main content

Autofluorescence and Diagnostic Accuracy of Lesions of Oral Mucosa: A Pilot Study

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Dental Journal, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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.
Title
Autofluorescence and Diagnostic Accuracy of Lesions of Oral Mucosa: A Pilot Study
Published in
Brazilian Dental Journal, December 2015
DOI 10.1590/0103-6440201300181
Pubmed ID
Authors

Enric Jané-Salas, Andrés Blanco-Carrión, Lluís Jover-Armengol, José López-López

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of autofluorescence techniques for diagnosing oral mucosa lesions, using as reference pattern for comparison the visual diagnosis made by a clinical specialist. A pilot study was conducted with 60 patients divided in a control group without mucosal pathology and a study group with known clinical history for mucosal pathology. Both groups were examined by an oral medicine specialist and by a general dentist who used VELscope(r) system, which applies tissue fluorescence visualization to identify oral mucosal abnormalities. Using the VELscope(r) system, the general dentist made overdiagnosis in two cases and underdiagnosis in one case. The sensitivity and specificity for the oral medicine specialist were 1 (95% CI: 0.884 to 1). For the general dentist, the sensitivity did not improve significantly with the use of VELscope(r) system [0.53 (95% CI: 0.343 to 0.717) versus 0.49 (95% CI: 0.406 to 0.773)] and the specificity was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.614 to 0.923). A limitation of the study is the small sample size, which does not fully represent a population and extrapolation of the data should be done carefully. Based on the obtained results, no clinical benefits were obtained using this VELscope(r) system.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 8 27%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 53%
Engineering 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 27%
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 13 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Dental Journal
#89
of 284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,662
of 395,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Dental Journal
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 284 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 395,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.