| Title |
A pilot study assessing tolerance safety and feasibility of diagnostic transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy using an improved larger caliber endoscope and an adapted topical anesthesia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-014-4025-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Valerio Balassone, Mario Dauri, Roberto Cappuccio, Mauro Di Camillo, Domenico Benavoli, Oreste Buonomo, Giuseppe Petrella, Italo Stroppa |
| Abstract |
Transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (TN-EGDS) is well tolerated by patients and the examination is perceived comfortable without the need of a sedative drug. Conversely, mainly in Western literature, some authors report limitations in illumination, image quality, and working channel as affecting TN-EGDS diffusion. To overcome these disadvantages, a new transnasal endoscope (TNE) was tested but, due to its larger diameter, we have no evidence of its clinical safety and tolerability. A new adapted nasal anesthesia could be useful to improve TNE tolerance. In an independent, not sponsored, pilot prospective study we enrolled, in a busy clinical hospital setting, 30 adult patients receiving nasal atomized Lidocaine and Xylometazoline (XAL) to undergo a diagnostic TN-EGDS with TNE to evaluate its tolerance, safety, and feasibility. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 17% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
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 17 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,312,760
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,786
of 6,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,852
of 331,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#67
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,026 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 331,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.