| Title |
Is endoscopic ultrasonography more sensitive than magnetic resonance imaging in detecting and localizing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11154-018-9464-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Herbert Kann |
| Abstract |
To compare endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in terms of their sensitivities to localize pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) preoperatively. Systematic analysis of the literature; sensitivity of EUS and MRI in insulinomas and pancreaticoduodenal NETs in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) in series of at least 20 subjects referring to tumors confirmed by surgery and histopathology. Other imaging methods reported were also assessed. Eighteen publications on insulinomas (782 cases) could be analyzed, no study in MEN1 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and compared EUS to MRI. Data quality was moderate: all publications referred to case series. Mean correct detection / localization rates (sensitivity) were calculated: EUS 80%, MRI 66%, computed tomography 63%, angiography 52%, somatostatin receptor scintigraphy 42%, ultrasonography 23%; arterial calcium stimulation with hepatic venous sampling regionalized correctly in 80%. EUS seems to be more sensitive than MRI in localizing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. If a specialized endosonographist is available, EUS is the preferable imaging procedure. Otherwise, MRI is a suitable alternative. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 22% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 44% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 44% |
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 01 October 2018.
All research outputs
#13,616,989
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders
#297
of 505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,896
of 345,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 345,250 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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.