↓ Skip to main content

Growth of Focal Nodular Hyperplasia is Not a Reason for Surgical Intervention, but Patients Should be Referred to a Tertiary Referral Centre

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Growth of Focal Nodular Hyperplasia is Not a Reason for Surgical Intervention, but Patients Should be Referred to a Tertiary Referral Centre
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00268-017-4335-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mirelle E. E. Bröker, Anne J. Klompenhouwer, Marcia P. Gaspersz, Annick M. E. Alleleyn, Roy S. Dwarkasing, Indra C. Pieters, Robert A. de Man, Jan N. M. IJzermans

Abstract

When a liver lesion diagnosed as focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) increases in size, it may cause doubt about the initial diagnosis. In many cases, additional investigations will follow to exclude hepatocellular adenoma or malignancy. This retrospective cohort study addresses the implications of growth of FNH for clinical management. We included patients diagnosed with FNH based on ≥2 imaging modalities between 2002 and 2015. Characteristics of patients with growing FNH with sequential imaging in a 6-month interval were compared to non-growing FNH. Growth was reported in 19/162 (12%) patients, ranging from 21 to 200%. Resection was performed in 4/19 growing FNHs; histological examination confirmed FNH in all patients. In all 15 conservatively treated patients, additional imaging confirmed FNH diagnosis. No adverse outcomes were reported. No differences were found in characteristics and presentation of patients with growing or non-growing FNH. This study confirms that FNH may grow significantly without causing symptoms. A significant increase in size should not have any implications on clinical management if confident diagnosis by imaging has been established by a tertiary benign liver multidisciplinary team. Liver biopsy is only indicated in case of doubt after state-of-the-art imaging. Resection is deemed unnecessary if the diagnosis is confirmed by multiple imaging modalities in a tertiary referral centre.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 61%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Unknown 6 26%
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 30 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,294,779
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#1,441
of 4,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,460
of 437,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#49
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 437,850 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 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 54% of its contemporaries.