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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Is Palliative Percutaneous Drainage for Malignant Biliary Obstruction Useful?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-018-4567-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jarmo Niemelä, Raija Kallio, Pasi Ohtonen, Jukka Perälä, Juha Saarnio, Hannu Syrjälä |
| Abstract |
Malignant biliary obstruction is a challenging problem for cancer patients. Here we evaluate predictive factors for survival following percutaneous drainage for malignant biliary obstruction in patients in whom endoscopic drainage was unsuccessful or insufficient. A retrospective register study in a tertiary-level university hospital. A total of 643 cancer patients (317 females and 326 males) with malignant biliary obstruction were treated with percutaneous drainage at our hospital between 1999 and 2016. Their median overall survival rate was 2.6 months, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 2.2-3.0. Independent factors predicting poor outcome were metastatic cancer, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.2 (95% CI 1.8-2.7); Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 2 (HR 2.3; 95% CI 1.8-2.8); ECOG PS of 3-4 (HR 3.5; 95% CI 2.8-4.4), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA) of 4 (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.5-2.9); and bilirubin of ≥60.0 µmol/L within 30 days post-drainage (HR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1-1.6). During the time periods 1999-2004 and 2005-2010, patients had poorer outcomes (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1-1.7 and HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2-1.8) than during the last period 2011-2016. Patients with cancer who underwent percutaneous biliary drainage for biliary obstruction had a poor median overall survival. The usefulness of biliary drainage, especially in patients with metastatic cancer, poor ECOG PS, and high ASA class, should be critically considered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 62% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
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 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,590,133
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#3,496
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#259,332
of 333,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#76
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 333,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.