↓ Skip to main content

Impact of an 18F-FDG PET/CT Radiotracer Injection Infiltration on Patient Management—A Case Report

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Impact of an 18F-FDG PET/CT Radiotracer Injection Infiltration on Patient Management—A Case Report
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jackson W. Kiser, James R. Crowley, David A. Wyatt, Ronald K. Lattanze

Abstract

Major management decisions in patients with solid tumors and lymphomas are often based on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET/CT. The misadministration of 18F-FDG outside the systemic circulation can have an adverse impact on this test's sensitivity (1) and is not uncommon (2-7). This report describes how an 18F-FDG misadministration led to a repeat PET/CT study, resulting in the visualization of distant metastases that changed the original treatment plan. The findings suggest that routine injection monitoring is indicated whenever sensitivity is critical, and support claims that infiltrations can confound interpretation of semi-quantitative PET outcome measures in patients who are followed longitudinally (2).

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 21%
Unspecified 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 5 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 2 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 14%
Unspecified 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 5 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,612,022
of 23,055,429 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#4,033
of 5,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,031
of 326,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#86
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,055,429 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 326,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 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.