↓ Skip to main content

PET/CT-guided versus CT-guided percutaneous core biopsies in the diagnosis of bone tumors and tumor-like lesions: which is the better choice?

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Imaging, October 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
PET/CT-guided versus CT-guided percutaneous core biopsies in the diagnosis of bone tumors and tumor-like lesions: which is the better choice?
Published in
Cancer Imaging, October 2019
DOI 10.1186/s40644-019-0253-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Min-hao Wu, Ling-fei Xiao, Huo-wen Liu, Zhi-qiang Yang, Xiao-xiao Liang, Yan Chen, Jun Lei, Zhou-ming Deng

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 52%
Chemistry 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 February 2020.
All research outputs
#17,245,787
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#319
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,802
of 377,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 377,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.