| Title |
Diagnosis and staging of fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C: comparison and critical overview of current strategies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Hepatic medicine evidence and research, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/hmer.s125234 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leandro César Mendes, Raquel SB Stucchi, Aline G Vigani |
| Abstract |
In the past years, what has always been considered undisputed true in liver fibrosis staging has been challenged. Diagnostic performance of histological evaluation has proven to be significantly influenced by sample- and observer-related variabilities. Differentiation between lower levels of fibrosis remains difficult for many, if not all, test modalities, including liver biopsy but, perhaps, such a distinction is not indispensable in light of current therapeutic approaches. Biomarkers and elastography offer, nonetheless, high predictive values for advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis and correlate well with liver-related outcomes. Necroinflammation, steatosis, and hemodynamic changes may significantly interfere with elastography-based techniques, and longitudinal follow-up strategies must be tailored in light of these findings. Knowledge of different test modalities and diagnostic performance indicators can allow for better clinical decision-making and resource allocation. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 15 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 32% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 14 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Hepatic medicine evidence and research
#100
of 116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#303,768
of 343,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hepatic medicine evidence and research
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 343,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.