↓ Skip to main content

Clinical characteristics of narrow-band imaging of oral erythroplakia and its correlation with pathology

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Clinical characteristics of narrow-band imaging of oral erythroplakia and its correlation with pathology
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1422-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shih-Wei Yang, Yun-Shien Lee, Liang-Che Chang, Cheng-Cheng Hwang, Cheng-Ming Luo, Tai-An Chen

Abstract

To analyze the clinical application of endoscope with narrow-band imaging (NBI) system in detecting high-grade dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, and carcinoma in oral erythroplakia. The demographic, histopathological data, and NBI vasculature architectures of patients receiving surgical intervention for oral erythroplakia were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed statistically. A total of 72 patients, including 66 males and 6 females, with mean age of 54.6 ± 11.2 years, were enrolled. The odds ratio of detecting high-grade dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, and carcinoma by twisted elongated morphology and destructive pattern of intraepithelial microvasculature was 15.46 (confidence interval 95 %: 3.81-72.84), and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 80.95 %, 78.43 %, 60.71 %, 90.91 %, and 79.17 %, respectively, which were significantly better than other two established NBI criteria (p < 0.001). Twisted, elongated, and destructive patterns of intraepithelial papillary capillary loop of NBI images are indicators for high-grade dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, and invasive carcinoma in oral erythroplakia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 17%

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 07 February 2016.
All research outputs
#7,172,761
of 8,294,668 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,815
of 3,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,715
of 219,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#190
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,294,668 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,488 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 219,682 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.