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 |
The importance of breast elastography added to the BI-RADS® (5th edition) lexicon classification
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1806-9282.61.04.313 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eduardo de Faria Castro Fleury |
| Abstract |
SummaryObjective:the aim of this study was to investigate the addition of elastography to the BI-RADS® lexicon for the classification of breast lesions. a total of 955 consecutive patients who were subjected to breast percutaneous biopsy from January 2010 to December 2012 were retrospectively assessed. Overall, 26 patients who did not present with masses on conventional ultrasound were excluded. The patients were classified according to the fifth edition of the breast imaging and reporting data system (BI-RADS®) lexicon, which includes elastographic findings. The BI-RADS®classification is based on the same classification principles that have been suggested by the author, which classify lesions as soft, intermediate, or hard. the addition of elastographic findings to the BI-RADS® lexicon improved the sensitivity (S), specificity (SP), and diagnostic accuracy (DA) of ultrasound in the assessment of breast lesions, which increased from 93.85, 72.07, and 76.64 to 95.90, 80.65, and 91.39%, respectively. these findings suggest that the addition of elastography to the BIRADS ® lexicon will improve the SP and DA of ultrasound in the screening of breast lesions. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 40% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 48% |
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 19 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,168,964
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira
#285
of 1,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,173
of 276,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,105 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 276,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.