| Title |
Location, length, and enhancement: systematic approach to differentiating intramedullary spinal cord lesions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-018-0608-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Mohajeri Moghaddam, Alok A. Bhatt |
| Abstract |
Intramedullary spinal cord abnormalities are often challenging to diagnose. Spinal cord biopsy is a high-risk procedure with the potential to cause permanent neurological injury. Magnetic resonance imaging is the modality of choice for diagnosis and preoperative assessment of patients with spinal cord abnormalities. The radiologist's ability to narrow the differential diagnosis of spinal cord abnormalities has the potential to save patients from invasive approaches for diagnosis and also guide appropriate management. This article will provide a systematic approach to the evaluation of intramedullary spinal cord lesions-with emphasis on location, length and segment distribution, and enhancement pattern-to help narrow the differential diagnosis. In doing so, we will review various spinal cord pathologies, including demyelinating and metabolic conditions, neoplasms, and vascular lesions. Although intramedullary spinal cord abnormalities can be a challenge for the radiologist, a systematic approach to the differential diagnosis with a focus on lesion location, cord length and segment involvement, as well as enhancement pattern, can greatly help narrow the differential diagnosis, if not synch the diagnosis. This strategy will potentially obviate the need for an invasive approach to diagnosis and help guide treatment. • Imaging diagnosis of intramedullary spinal cord lesions could obviate cord biopsy. • Evaluation of cord lesions should focus on location, length, and enhancement pattern. • In demyelination, the degree of cross-sectional involvement is a distinguishing feature. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 6% |
| Austria | 2 | 4% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| Tunisia | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Uganda | 1 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 23% |
| Unknown | 18 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 54% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 27% |
| Scientists | 6 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 117 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 18% |
| Unknown | 28 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 54% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 31 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 31 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,308,450
of 25,247,084 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#55
of 1,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,666
of 335,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,247,084 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 335,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.