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 |
Soft Tissue Coverage of the Lower Limb following Oncological Surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in oncology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fonc.2015.00303 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christine Radtke, Martin Panzica, Khaled Dastagir, Christian Krettek, Peter M. Vogt |
| Abstract |
The treatment of lower limb tumors has been shifted by advancements in adjuvant treatment protocols and microsurgical reconstruction from limb amputation to limb salvage. Standard approaches include oncological surgery by a multidisciplinary team in terms of limb sparing followed by soft tissue reconstruction and adjuvant therapy when indicated. For the development of a comprehensive surgical plan, the identity of the tumor should first be determined by histology after biopsy. Then the surgical goal and comprehensive treatment concept should be developed by a multidisciplinary tumor board and combined with soft tissue reconstruction. In this article, plastic surgical reconstruction options for soft coverage of the lower extremity following oncological surgery will be described along with the five clinical cases. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 59% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
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 13 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#11,309
of 22,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#296,819
of 401,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#65
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,414 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 401,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.