↓ Skip to main content

Integrated Anterior, Central, and Posterior Skull Base Unit – A New Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2 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
Integrated Anterior, Central, and Posterior Skull Base Unit – A New Perspective
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00032
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yves Brand, Vicknes Waran, Abu Bakar Zulkiflee, Elizabeth Lim, Narayanan Prepageran

Abstract

The skull base is one of the most complex anatomical regions and forms the floor of the cranial cavity. Skull base surgery involves open, microscopic, and endoscopic approaches to the anterior, middle, or posterior cranial fossa. A multispecialty team approach is essential in treating patients with skull base lesions. Traditionally, rhinologists are involved in providing access to anterior skull base lesions while otologists are involved in the treatment of lesions of the posterior skull base. This is the case in most skull base centers today. In this article, we share a new perspective of an integrated skull base unit where a team of otolaryngologists and neurosurgeons treat anterior, middle, and posterior skull base pathologies. The rationale for this approach is that most technical skills required in skull base surgery are interchangeable and apply whether an endoscopic or microscopic approach is used. We show how the different skills apply to the different approaches and share our experience with an integrated skull base unit.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 50%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 100%
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 21 July 2015.
All research outputs
#18,418,919
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#918
of 2,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,743
of 264,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 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 2,858 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 264,073 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.