| Title |
Assessing the conditions forin vivo electrical virtual biopsies in Barrett's oesophagus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, July 2000
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf02345004 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. A. González-Correa, B. H. Brown, R. H. Smallwood, N. Kalia, C. J. Stoddard, T. J. Stephenson, S. J. Haggie, D. N. Slater, K. D. Bardhan |
| Abstract |
It has previously been shown that it is possible to differentiate between squamous and columnar epithelia in rat and resected human tissues using an impedance probe to make in vitro measurements. This probe can be passed down an endoscope allowing measurements to be made in patients. However, the probe emerges parallel to the oesophageal wall, with little room to manoeuvre. The conditions of control required to give reliable readings have been investigated. The importance of pressure applied and the angle of approach to the oesophagus was assessed. Pressures in the range 26.6 Pa to 46.3 kPa and angles in the range 15-90 degrees were considered. In in vitro studies it was observed that it was possible to obtain consistent readings with pressures greater than 2.9 kPa and with angles greater than 15 degrees between the probe and the oesophagus. These conditions can be achieved in vivo, and readings obtained from twelve patients are shown (45 readings on normal squamous, 34 on Barrett's oesophagus and 22 on stomach). At low frequencies (9.6-153.2 kHz), a Mann-Whitney test shows a significant difference (p < 0.001) when comparing the means from squamous and columnar, and also when readings from Barrett's and normal gastric epithelia are compared (p < 0.001). |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 2 | 20% |
| Researcher | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 5 | 50% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 30% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
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 May 2015.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
#547
of 2,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,226
of 39,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,053 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 39,275 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.