| Title |
Management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Radiology, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00330-017-4742-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca Wiles, Ruedi F. Thoeni, Sorin Traian Barbu, Yogesh K. Vashist, Søren Rafael Rafaelsen, Catherine Dewhurst, Marianna Arvanitakis, Max Lahaye, Marek Soltes, Julie Perinel, Stuart Ashley Roberts |
| Abstract |
The management of incidentally detected gallbladder polyps on radiological examinations is contentious. The incidental radiological finding of a gallbladder polyp can therefore be problematic for the radiologist and the clinician who referred the patient for the radiological examination. To address this a joint guideline was created by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and other Interventional Techniques (EAES), International Society of Digestive Surgery - European Federation (EFISDS) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A targeted literature search was performed and consensus guidelines were created using a series of Delphi questionnaires and a seven-point Likert scale. A total of three Delphi rounds were performed. Consensus regarding which patients should have cholecystectomy, which patients should have ultrasound follow-up and the nature and duration of that follow-up was established. The full recommendations as well as a summary algorithm are provided. These expert consensus recommendations can be used as guidance when a gallbladder polyp is encountered in clinical practice. • Management of gallbladder polyps is contentious • Cholecystectomy is recommended for gallbladder polyps >10 mm • Management of polyps <10 mm depends on patient and polyp characteristics • Further research is required to determine optimal management of gallbladder polyps. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 86 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 10% |
| Spain | 8 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 9% |
| Mexico | 5 | 6% |
| Ecuador | 4 | 5% |
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| India | 2 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 2% |
| El Salvador | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 56 | 65% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 18 | 21% |
| Scientists | 10 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 184 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 21 | 11% |
| Researcher | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 41 | 22% |
| Unknown | 48 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 104 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 56 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. 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 08 November 2022.
All research outputs
#635,529
of 25,571,620 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#33
of 5,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,838
of 425,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#1
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,571,620 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,028 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 425,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.