↓ Skip to main content

Hyperechoic breast images: all that glitters is not gold!

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Hyperechoic breast images: all that glitters is not gold!
Published in
Insights into Imaging, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13244-017-0590-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabrielle Journo, Guillaume Bataillon, Raphael Benchimol, Asma Bekhouche, Chloe Dratwa, Delphine Sebbag-Sfez, Anne Tardivon, Fabienne Thibault, Catherine Ala-Eddine, Pascal Chérel, Caroline Malhaire

Abstract

Hyperechogenicity is a sign classically reported to be in favour of a benign lesion and can be observed in many types of benign breast lesions such as hamartoma, lipoma, angiolipoma, haemangioma, haematoma, fat necrosis, fibrosis and galactocele, among others. However, some rare malignant breast lesions can also present a hyperechoic appearance. Most of these hyperechoic malignant lesions present other characteristics that are more typically suggestive of malignancy such as posterior shadowing, a more vertical axis or irregular margins that help to guide the diagnosis. Post magnetic resonance imaging, second-look ultrasound may visualise hyperechoic malignant lesions that would not have been identified at first sight and radiologists must know how to recognise these lesions. • Some rare malignant breast lesions can present a hyperechoic appearance. • Malignant lesions present other characteristics that are suggestive of malignancy. • An echogenic mass with fat density on mammography does not require biopsy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 24%
Other 3 12%
Professor 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,961,908
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#304
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,936
of 333,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#10
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 333,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.