↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Perirenal fat stranding is not a powerful diagnostic tool for acute pyelonephritis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, May 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Perirenal fat stranding is not a powerful diagnostic tool for acute pyelonephritis
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s133685
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hirotaka Fukami, Yoichi Takeuchi, Saeko Kagaya, Yoshie Ojima, Ayako Saito, Hiroyuki Sato, Ken Matsuda, Tasuku Nagasawa

Abstract

Pyelonephritis, an upper urinary tract infection, is a serious infection that often requires hospitalization. However, the accurate diagnosis of acute pyelonephritis can be difficult, especially among older individuals who can present with unusual symptoms. Imaging with computed tomography (CT) is not unusual in the diagnosis of pyelonephritis, with some clinicians regarding perirenal fat stranding (PFS) as a characteristic finding. However, the sensitivity and specificity of PFS in diagnosing pyelonephritis are currently unknown. We therefore sought to clarify the relevance of PFS in diagnosing acute pyelonephritis. We conducted a case-controlled retrospective analysis of medical records. The pyelonephritis group included 89 patients who had been diagnosed with acute pyelonephritis, while the control group included 319 patients who had undergone percutaneous renal biopsy. CT findings were available for both groups. The frequency of PFS and its sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of acute pyelonephritis were investigated. The mean ages of the pyelonephritis and control groups were 74±15 years and 63±16 years, respectively. A total of 28% of men were in the pyelonephritis group vs 61% of men in the control group. The frequency of PFS was 72% in the pyelonephritis group vs 39% in the control group. Age and renal dysfunction were associated with an increased frequency of PFS. After adjusting for age, sex, and renal function using a propensity score analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio of PFS for diagnosing acute pyelonephritis were 72%, 58%, and 1.7, respectively. The presence of PFS was not useful in diagnosing acute pyelonephritis.

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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 19 31%
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 11 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 59%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 17 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 11 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,991,750
of 25,463,724 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#145
of 1,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,950
of 324,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,463,724 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 324,803 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.