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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the bladder – an unexpected case coexisting with an ovarian teratoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diagnostic Pathology, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1746-1596-9-138 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zuzanna Dobrosz, Janusz Ryś, Piotr Paleń, Paweł Właszczuk, Marek Ciepiela |
| Abstract |
Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors (IMTs) mainly occur in children and young adults, usually in the first two decades of life. IMT-type tumors belong to neoplasms of an intermediate biologic potential with considerable rate of local recurrence and in some cases that able to create metastases. Presented case is the first IMT coexisting with the other neoplasm. In our paper we are going to present a peculiar case of an IMT of the bladder coexisting with an ovarian teratoma, and to discuss its pathogenesis, histological picture and differential diagnosis. A 19-year-old female was admitted to the Gynecological Department and during the surgery, two independent, non-adjacent tumors were found. To settle the diagnosis, a FISH examination with the ALK1 break apart probe was carried out. It confirmed the rearrangement of the chromosome 2p23. Morphologic and immunophenotypic similarities between an IMT and other malignant tumors of the bladder may lead to diagnostic errors and an unnecessary radical cystectomy as a result. The therapy of choice is only total excision of the tumor. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 50% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
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 July 2014.
All research outputs
#15,251,981
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#531
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,307
of 226,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#17
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 226,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 52% of its contemporaries.