The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Esthesioneuroblastoma, Neuroendocrine Carcinoma, and Sinonasal Undifferentiated Carcinoma: Differentiation in Diagnosis and Treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1055/s-0034-1390014 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shirley Y. Su, Diana Bell, Ehab Y. Hanna |
| Abstract |
Introduction Malignant sinonasal tumors comprise less than 1% of all neoplasms. A wide variety of tumors occurring primarily in this site can present with an undifferentiated or poorly differentiated morphology. Among them are esthesioneuroblastomas, sinonasal undifferentiated carcinomas, and neuroendocrine carcinomas. Objectives We will discuss diagnostic strategies, recent advances in immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnosis, and treatment strategies. Data Synthesis These lesions are diagnostically challenging, and up to 30% of sinonasal malignancies referred to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center are given a different diagnosis on review of pathology. Correct classification is vital, as these tumors are significantly different in biological behavior and response to treatment. The past decade has witnessed advances in diagnosis and therapeutic modalities leading to improvements in survival. However, the optimal treatment for esthesioneuroblastoma, sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma, and neuroendocrine carcinoma remain debated. We discuss advances in immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnosis, diagnostic strategies, and treatment selection. Conclusions There are significant differences in prognosis and treatment for esthesioneuroblastoma, neuroendocrine carcinoma, and sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma. Recent advances have the potential to improve oncologic outcomes but further investigation in needed. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 22% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 59% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 19 | 28% |
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 09 March 2015.
All research outputs
#20,268,102
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#305
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,604
of 255,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#7
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 255,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.