↓ Skip to main content

Radiological review of skull lesions

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
Radiological review of skull lesions
Published in
Insights into Imaging, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13244-018-0643-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carrie K. Gomez, Scott R. Schiffman, Alok A. Bhatt

Abstract

Calvarial lesions are often asymptomatic and are usually discovered incidentally during computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Calvarial lesions can be benign or malignant. Although the majority of skull lesions are benign, it is important to be familiar with their imaging characteristics and to recognise those with malignant features where more aggressive management is needed. Clinical information such as the age of the patient, as well as the patient's history is fundamental in making the correct diagnosis. In this article, we will review the imaging features of both common and uncommon calvarial lesions, as well as mimics of these lesions found in clinical practice. • Skull lesions are usually discovered incidentally; they can be benign or malignant. • Metastases are the most frequent cause of skull lesions. • Metastatic lesions are most commonly due to breast cancer in adults and neuroblastoma in children. • Multiple myeloma presents as the classic "punched out" lytic lesions on radiographs. • Eosinophilic granuloma is an osteolytic lesion with bevelled edges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 23 16%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 44 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 44%
Neuroscience 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Engineering 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 46 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#3,200,477
of 25,364,603 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#179
of 1,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,490
of 351,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#6
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,364,603 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 351,449 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.