↓ Skip to main content

Guidelines of the Brazilian Dermatology Society for diagnosis, treatment and follow up of primary cutaneous melanoma - Part I

Overview of attention for article published in Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Guidelines of the Brazilian Dermatology Society for diagnosis, treatment and follow up of primary cutaneous melanoma - Part I
Published in
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, December 2015
DOI 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20154707
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luiz Guilherme Martins Castro, Maria Cristina Messina, Walter Loureiro, Ricardo Silvestre Macarenco, João Pedreira Duprat Neto, Thais Helena Bello Di Giacomo, Flávia Vasques Bittencourt, Renato Marchiori Bakos, Sérgio Schrader Serpa, Hamilton Ometto Stolf, Gabriel Gontijo

Abstract

The last Brazilian guidelines on melanoma were published in 2002. Development in diagnosis and treatment made updating necessary. The coordinators elaborated ten clinical questions, based on PICO system. A Medline search, according to specific MeSH terms for each of the 10 questions was performed and articles selected were classified from A to D according to level of scientific evidence. Based on the results, recommendations were defined and classified according to scientific strength. The present Guidelines were divided in two parts for editorial and publication reasons. In the first part, the following clinical questions were answered: 1) The use of dermoscopy for diagnosis of primary cutaneous melanoma brings benefits for patients when compared with clinical examination? 2) Does dermoscopy favor diagnosis of nail apparatus melanoma? 3) Is there a prognostic difference when incisional or excisional biopsies are used? 4) Does revision by a pathologist trained in melanoma contribute to diagnosis and treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma? What margins should be used to treat lentigo maligna melanoma and melanoma in situ?

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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 5 15%

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 02 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,877,198
of 12,554,428 outputs
Outputs from Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia
#170
of 394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,569
of 352,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,554,428 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 394 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 352,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.