↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

ACR Neck Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (NI-RADS): A White Paper of the ACR NI-RADS Committee

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
57 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
ACR Neck Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (NI-RADS): A White Paper of the ACR NI-RADS Committee
Published in
Journal of the American College of Radiology, July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.05.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley H. Aiken, Tanya J. Rath, Yoshimi Anzai, Barton F. Branstetter, Jenny K. Hoang, Richard H. Wiggins, Amy F. Juliano, Christine Glastonbury, C. Douglas Phillips, Richard Brown, Patricia A. Hudgins

Abstract

Imaging surveillance after treatment for head and neck cancer is challenging because of complicated resection and reconstruction surgery, in addition to posttreatment changes from radiation and chemotherapy. The posttreatment neck is often a source of anxiety for diagnostic radiologists, leading to suboptimal reporting and no standardized guidance for next management steps. Nevertheless, imaging is critical for detecting submucosal recurrences in a timely manner, so that patients remain candidates for salvage surgery. In 2016, the ACR convened the Neck Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (NI-RADS) Committee with the goals to (1) provide recommendations for surveillance imaging; (2) produce a lexicon to distinguish between benign posttreatment change and residual or recurrent tumor in the posttreatment neck; and (3) propose a NI-RADS template for reporting on the basis of this lexicon with defined levels of suspicion and management recommendations. In this article, the authors present the ACR NI-RADS Committee's recommendations, which provide guidance regarding the management of patients after treatment for head and neck cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 16%
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 24 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 1%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 32 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 19 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,089,562
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American College of Radiology
#212
of 3,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,247
of 341,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American College of Radiology
#10
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 341,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.