| Title |
Systematic review of the mesopancreas: concept and clinical implications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Oncology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12094-018-1869-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. M. Ramia, R. De-la-Plaza, A. Manuel-Vazquez, A. Lopez-Marcano, R. Morales |
| Abstract |
In 2007, Gockel et al. coined the term mesopancreas (MP). In the next 10 years, a limited number of publications about MP have been published, but little is known about the oncological benefit of MP resection. We performed a systematic review of the literature on MP. An electronic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Latindex, Scielo, and Koreamed databases until 15 June 2017 to identify all published articles dealing with the subject of MP. Some language restriction was done (Chinese and Rumanian). The search yielded 51 articles; 28 articles were selected as relevant. All were retrospective studies focused more on describing technical variants, feasibility and safety than on the cancer results. The R0 rate in patients with MP resection ranged between 57 and 96.7%. In all the articles with a control group, the R0 rate was higher in the MP excision group. Survival data were explicitly stated only in five series. MP is a difficult-to-excise retropancreatic area. In theory, it is agreed that MP excision raises the rate of R0 resections, which in turn reflected in an improvement in the oncological results; however, at present there are no randomized studies to prove this. Achieving a worldwide consensus on its concept, landmarks, excision technique and oncological results is essential. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Librarian | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 25% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 58% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,543,461
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#548
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,195
of 327,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#14
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 327,489 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 53% of its contemporaries.