↓ Skip to main content

Deep Inspiration Breath Hold: Techniques and Advantages for Cardiac Sparing During Breast Cancer Irradiation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
147 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
253 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
Deep Inspiration Breath Hold: Techniques and Advantages for Cardiac Sparing During Breast Cancer Irradiation
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2018.00087
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmen Bergom, Adam Currey, Nina Desai, An Tai, Jonathan B. Strauss

Abstract

Historically, heart dose from left-sided breast radiotherapy has been associated with a risk of cardiac injury. Data suggests that there is not a threshold for the deleterious effects from radiation on the heart. Over the past several years, advances in radiation delivery techniques have reduced cardiac morbidity due to treatment. Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) is a technique that takes advantage of a more favorable position of the heart during inspiration to minimize heart doses over a course of radiation therapy. In the accompanying review article, we outline several methods used to deliver treatment with DIBH, quantify the benefits of DIBH treatment, discuss considerations for patient selection, and identify challenges associated with DIBH techniques.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 253 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 13%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Researcher 23 9%
Student > Master 18 7%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 34 13%
Unknown 105 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 10%
Physics and Astronomy 17 7%
Engineering 10 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Other 18 7%
Unknown 118 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,742,617
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#682
of 22,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,714
of 343,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#17
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,523,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,634 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 343,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.