↓ Skip to main content

Brazilian guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of primary cutaneous melanoma - Part II

Overview of attention for article published in Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Brazilian guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of primary cutaneous melanoma - Part II
Published in
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, February 2016
DOI 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20164715
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luiz Guilherme Martins Castro, Renato Marchiori Bakos, João Pedreira Duprat Neto, Flávia Vasques Bittencourt, Thais Helena Bello Di Giacomo, Sérgio Schrader Serpa, Maria Cristina de Lorenzo Messina, Walter Refkalefsky Loureiro, Ricardo Silvestre e Silva Macarenco, Hamilton Ometto Stolf, Gabriel Gontijo

Abstract

The last Brazilian guidelines on melanoma were published in 2002. Development in diagnosis and treatment made updating necessary. The coordinators elaborated ten clinical questions, based on PICO system. A Medline search, according to specific MeSH terms for each of the 10 questions was performed and articles selected were classified from A to D according to level of scientific evidence. Based on the results, recommendations were defined and classified according to scientific strength. The present Guidelines were divided in two parts for editorial and publication reasons. In this second part, the following clinical questions were answered: 1) which patients with primary cutaneous melanoma benefit from sentinel lymph node biopsy? 2) Follow-up with body mapping is indicated for which patients? 3) Is preventive excision of acral nevi beneficious to patients? 4) Is preventive excision of giant congenital nevi beneficious to patients? 5) How should stages 0 and I primary cutaneous melanoma patients be followed?

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 21%
Student > Master 9 19%
Other 8 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 7 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,877,198
of 12,554,428 outputs
Outputs from Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia
#174
of 394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,016
of 369,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,554,428 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 394 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 369,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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