| Title |
Inflammatory bowel disease—the role of cross-sectional imaging techniques in the investigation of the small bowel
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-014-0377-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Athanasios Athanasakos, Argyro Mazioti, Nikolaos Economopoulos, Christina Kontopoulou, Georgios Stathis, Dimitrios Filippiadis, Themistoklis Spyridopoulos, Efthymia Alexopoulou |
| Abstract |
Background: The diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in children and adolescents is based on the integration of clinical, biological, endoscopic, histological and radiological data. Methods: The most important part of the diagnosis is the histology, which is acquired by endoscopy. Imaging of the small bowel has changed in recent years, but the imaging goals are primarily to determine the extent of small bowel involvement, assess complications and define candidates for surgery. Imaging techniques are divided into conventional and cross-sectional ones. Results: The spectrum of imaging findings of cross-sectional techniques is discussed, emphasising the advantages and limitations of each technique, acknowledging the specificities of the paediatric population. Cross-sectional techniques have advanced the ability to diagnose and monitor inflammatory disease of the small bowel. Conclusion: MR enterography is the technique of choice in children with known IBD, for the investigation of the small bowel and the whole GI tract. US should be the first choice examination in children with suspected IBD, while CT should be reserved for cases in which MRI is contraindicated or in acute emergency situations when US is inadequate. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Tunisia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 23% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 68% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,907,830
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#678
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,916
of 361,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 361,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.