↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Clinical management of a challenging malignancy, osteoblastoma-like osteosarcoma: a report of four cases and a review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Clinical management of a challenging malignancy, osteoblastoma-like osteosarcoma: a report of four cases and a review of the literature
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s102966
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harzem Ozger, Bugra Alpan, Mehmet Salih Söylemez, Korhan Ozkan, Ahmet Salduz, Bilge Bilgic, Basak Kumbasar Sirin

Abstract

Osteoblastoma-like osteosarcoma, a rare form of osteosarcoma, is a malignant lesion associated with risks of both local recurrence and distant metastasis. The differential diagnosis of osteoblastoma-like osteosarcoma from osteoblastoma and aggressive osteoblastoma remains controversial and challenging. Previous studies suggest that these three types of tumor are distinct entities. However, working out a precise diagnosis may not always be possible immediately on the basis of initial clinical, radiological, and histopathological features. On the other hand, the importance of a correct diagnosis cannot be overemphasized since the treatment strategies change dramatically according to the nature of the lesion. In all of our cases, initial Tru-Cut biopsies revealed osteoblastic features with minimal atypia, but further biopsies confirmed malignancy. A high index of suspicion and considerable experience are prerequisites for accurate diagnosis in case of clinicopathological and radiological discordance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 8 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 47%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 7 37%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#810
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,207
of 381,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#22
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 381,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.