| Title |
Hemorrhoids and rectal internal mucosal prolapse: one or two conditions? A national survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Techniques in Coloproctology, July 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10151-005-0219-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
F. Gaj, A. Trecca |
| Abstract |
The surgical modalities for the treatment of hemorrhoids are quite numerous due to the rapid diffusion of new surgical techniques and to the different approaches to the pathophysiology of the disease by the proctologists. Stapled hemorrhoidopexy, one of the most recent surgical options proposed, emphasizes the role of rectal internal mucosal prolapse (RIMP) as the main cause of the disease. We performed a national survey among the most important proctologists on this particular clinical condition, in order to better define the indications for the surgical treatment of hemorrhoids. A questionnaire concerning the main clinical features of RIMP was mailed to 84 coloproctology centers. Two-thirds of the 41 proctologists who responded found RIMP in a minority of patients with hemorrhoids, whereas only one-third found RIMP in more than half of their patients. A circumferential RIMP was identified by only 10% of the surgeons, whereas a coincidence between pre- and postoperative diagnoses of this condition was possible in half of proctologists' patients. RIMP is not frequently associated with hemorrhoids. Therefore, it is unlikely to be a cause of hemorrhoidal disease, and many surgeons still recognize it as a difficult clinical condition to define. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 18% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Researcher | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
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 26 August 2019.
All research outputs
#7,452,489
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#694
of 1,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,230
of 57,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 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 1,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 57,008 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.