↓ Skip to main content

Randomized controlled trial of the effect of sulindac on duodenal and rectal polyposis and cell proliferation in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Surgery, December 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
396 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Randomized controlled trial of the effect of sulindac on duodenal and rectal polyposis and cell proliferation in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis
Published in
British Journal of Surgery, December 2005
DOI 10.1002/bjs.1800801244
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. P. Nugent, K. C. R. Farmer, A. D. Spigelman, C. B. Williams, R. K. S. Phillips

Abstract

Twenty-four patients with familial adenomatous polyposis who had previously undergone prophylactic colectomy and had advanced duodenal polyposis were entered into a randomized trial to assess the effect of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug sulindac on duodenal and rectal polyps. Polyp size and number were assessed by videotaped duodenoscopy (and rectoscopy in 14 patients) at entry and after 6 months of treatment; the tapes were compared by two assessors who were unaware of the randomization and the shuffled chronological order of the recordings. Mucosal cell proliferation was measured by in vitro incorporation of 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine. Sulindac therapy was associated with a reduction in epithelial cell proliferation in the duodenum (median labelling index (LI) 15.8 versus 14.4 per cent, P = 0.003) and a trend towards duodenal polyp regression (P = 0.12). In the rectum, cell proliferation showed a marked reduction (median LI 8.5 versus 7.4 per cent, P = 0.018), and significant (P = 0.01) polyp regression was seen. Rectal polyposis was less severe than that in the duodenum and responded more dramatically. Sulindac is a possible treatment for patients in whom rectal polyps have failed to show significant regression after ileorectal anastomosis and who are unsuitable for pouch surgery; it may be useful in early duodenal polyposis or as an adjunct after duodenal clearance.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 43 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Other 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 6 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 October 2011.
All research outputs
#7,487,068
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Surgery
#2,557
of 5,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,138
of 147,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Surgery
#175
of 1,051 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 147,245 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,051 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.