↓ Skip to main content

How Tattoos Can Complement Breast Reconstruction

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

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
How Tattoos Can Complement Breast Reconstruction
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, April 2018
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.4.mnar1-1804
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Franczak

Abstract

Tattooing offers expanded possibilities for creative expression for women who have undergone mastectomies and breast reconstruction surgeries. Tattoo techniques for areola restoration, such as repigmentation, do not address breast asymmetry or heavy scarring, but breast tattoos can embolden a woman's sexuality, self-confidence, and sense of body reclamation, as well as strengthen her postsurgical capacity for relating to her breasts and expressing her identity. There are many factors involved when a tattoo artist is asked to design an image for a patient. This article describes how I apply my artistic and trade talent to help mastectomy patients creatively reach beyond the limitations of surgical reconstruction possibilities.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 3%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 16 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Psychology 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 17 57%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 October 2020.
All research outputs
#4,769,353
of 26,381,372 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1,173
of 2,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,651
of 348,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#24
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,381,372 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 348,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.