↓ Skip to main content

POEM and Submucosal Tunneling

Overview of attention for article published in Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
POEM and Submucosal Tunneling
Published in
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11938-016-0086-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuki B. Werner, Thomas Rösch

Abstract

Submucosal endoscopy has introduced new and important aspects into gastrointestinal endoscopic therapeutics by opening the way to interventions even outside of the GI tract. At present, innovative techniques for submucosal endoscopy in different esophageal diseases include peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for idiopathic achalasia and related motility disorders, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) for submucosal tumors arising from the muscularis propria, and endoscopic submucosal tunneling dissection (ESTD) for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions. POEM for achalasia-still a rare disease-is currently evaluated in comparison to endoscopic and surgical standard therapies, while this procedure enabling a long thoracic myotomy might constitute an advantage over the laparoscopic approach in treatments of spastic esophageal diseases. Removal of smaller submucosal esophageal tumors may appear tempting, but the clinical indications are limited by the facts that the vast majority of such smaller tumors are asymptomatic and benign.For all these innovative and technically demanding techniques, learning curves have to be taken into account, not only with regard to technical competence but also to clinical assessment, ranging from proper indication and patient selection to the management of (potential) complications and logistics/back-up. Although preliminary results from high-skilled endoscopic centers have been very encouraging, long-term data as well as prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the efficacy and safety of the modalities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 18%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 5 29%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 71%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,009,494
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology
#65
of 267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,176
of 300,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 300,819 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them