↓ Skip to main content

Sentinel Node Biopsy Using a Magnetic Tracer Versus Standard Technique: The SentiMAG Multicentre Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
190 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
Title
Sentinel Node Biopsy Using a Magnetic Tracer Versus Standard Technique: The SentiMAG Multicentre Trial
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, December 2013
DOI 10.1245/s10434-013-3379-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Douek, Joost Klaase, Ian Monypenny, Ashutosh Kothari, Katalin Zechmeister, Douglas Brown, Lynda Wyld, Philip Drew, Hans Garmo, Olorunsola Agbaje, Quentin Pankhurst, Bauke Anninga, Maarten Grootendorst, Bennie ten Haken, Margaret A. Hall-Craggs, Arnie Purushotham, Sarah Pinder, On behalf of the SentiMAG Trialists Group

Abstract

The SentiMAG Multicentre Trial evaluated a new magnetic technique for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) against the standard (radioisotope and blue dye or radioisotope alone). The magnetic technique does not use radiation and provides both a color change (brown dye) and a handheld probe for node localization. The primary end point of this trial was defined as the proportion of sentinel nodes detected with each technique (identification rate).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Slovakia 1 <1%
Unknown 145 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 9 6%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 36 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Physics and Astronomy 7 5%
Engineering 7 5%
Chemistry 6 4%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 39 26%
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 17 December 2013.
All research outputs
#18,148,462
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,965
of 6,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,068
of 309,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#47
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,610 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 309,636 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.