↓ Skip to main content

Serrated polyps of the large intestine: current understanding of diagnosis, pathogenesis, and clinical management

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gastroenterology, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
148 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Serrated polyps of the large intestine: current understanding of diagnosis, pathogenesis, and clinical management
Published in
Journal of Gastroenterology, December 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00535-012-0720-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christophe Rosty, David G. Hewett, Ian S. Brown, Barbara A. Leggett, Vicki L. J. Whitehall

Abstract

Approximately 30% of colorectal carcinomas develop via the serrated neoplasia pathway characterized by widespread DNA methylation and frequent BRAF mutation. Serrated polyps represent a heterogeneous group of polyps which are the precursor lesions to serrated pathway colorectal carcinomas. The histological classification of serrated polyps has evolved over the last two decades to distinguish three separate entities: hyperplastic polyp, sessile serrated adenoma (SSA), and traditional serrated adenoma (TSA). The malignant potential of SSAs and TSAs has been clearly demonstrated. SSAs are more challenging to detect by colonoscopy and are likely to account for some interval carcinomas of the proximal colon. Serrated polyposis syndrome is now widely recognized as conferring a high risk of colorectal carcinoma although its cause remains elusive. The current understanding of the actual malignant potential of each serrated polyp subtype is still limited due to the lack of large-scale prospective studies. Patient management guidelines have been recently updated although high-level evidence to support them is still required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 146 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 11%
Other 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 33 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 37 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 June 2023.
All research outputs
#6,917,607
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gastroenterology
#270
of 1,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,972
of 277,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gastroenterology
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,081 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 277,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.