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 |
The pathological findings seen in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies for weight loss
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pathology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pathol.2015.12.449 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gregory C. Miller, Andrew S. Reid, Ian S. Brown |
| Abstract |
Sleeve gastrectomy specimens are increasingly common surgical specimens received for examination following bariatric surgery for weight loss. The spectrum of pathological changes seen in these cases is not well documented. Retrospective examination was undertaken of 1463 consecutive sleeve gastrectomy specimens received at Envoi Specialist Pathologists. Most cases showed no pathological changes (80.2%). The most common changes seen were non-specific, non-Helicobacter associated chronic gastritis (7.2%), Helicobacter associated gastritis (6.8%) and benign fundic gland polyps (4.0%). Other, rarer changes were lymphocytic gastritis, autoimmune atrophic gastritis, chronic gastritis with intestinal metaplasia, hyperplastic polyps, pancreatic heterotopia, gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) and a leiomyoma. A wide range of pathological changes are seen in resection specimens following sleeve gastrectomies for weight loss. Many cases will require further treatment or ongoing investigation and surveillance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 28% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 April 2016.
All research outputs
#16,722,913
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Pathology
#766
of 1,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,779
of 313,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pathology
#10
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,528 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 313,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 57% of its contemporaries.