↓ Skip to main content

Identification of Threshold Prostate Specific Antigen Levels to Optimize the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer by Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Guided Biopsy

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Urology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Identification of Threshold Prostate Specific Antigen Levels to Optimize the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer by Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Guided Biopsy
Published in
The Journal of Urology, December 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2014.08.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nabeel A. Shakir, Arvin K. George, M. Minhaj Siddiqui, Jason T. Rothwax, Soroush Rais-Bahrami, Lambros Stamatakis, Daniel Su, Chinonyerem Okoro, Dima Raskolnikov, Annerleim Walton-Diaz, Richard Simon, Baris Turkbey, Peter L. Choyke, Maria J. Merino, Bradford J. Wood, Peter A. Pinto

Abstract

The sensitivity of prostate specific antigen (PSA) increases with lower threshold values but with a corresponding decline in specificity. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound (MR/US) targeted biopsy has been shown to detect prostate cancer (PCa) more efficiently and of higher grade than standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy, but the optimal population for its use is not well defined. We aimed to evaluate the performance of MR/US targeted versus 12-core biopsy across a PSA continuum.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 54 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 25%
Other 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 58%
Engineering 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 10 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 February 2015.
All research outputs
#6,490,518
of 12,819,898 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Urology
#6,057
of 12,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,018
of 198,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Urology
#44
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,819,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 198,936 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 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 72% of its contemporaries.