↓ Skip to main content

Percutaneous ultrasound‐guided core needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: Results in 250 patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Ultrasound, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
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.
Title
Percutaneous ultrasound‐guided core needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: Results in 250 patients
Published in
Journal of Clinical Ultrasound, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/jcu.22362
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guven Kahriman, Nevzat Ozcan, Serap Dogan, Soner Ozmen, Kemal Deniz

Abstract

To determine the diagnostic accuracy and complications of percutaneous sonographic (US)-guided core needle-needle biopsy in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Cases of US-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses performed in our department between July 2009 and June 2015 were analyzed retrospectively. The demographic data, lesions' size and location, pathology results, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and complications of the biopsies were determined. A total of 250 patients (150 males, 100 females; age range, 16-88 years; mean age, 64.3 ± 12.1 years) were included in the study. The overall diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of all 250 biopsies were 94.8%, 94.3%, 97.2%, 99.5%, and 75%, respectively, and changed to 98.4%, 99%, 94.7%, 99%, and 94.7%, respectively, after the biopsy was repeated in 12 patients. Four (1.6%) major complications, including a pseudoaneurysm of the gastroduodenal artery, and three cases of acute pancreatitis, and one (0.4%) minor complication (a vaso-vagal syncope), were observed. There was no biopsy-related death. US-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy is a safe and highly effective method with acceptable complication rates in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound, 2016.

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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 10 43%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,566,885
of 24,561,012 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Ultrasound
#372
of 885 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,943
of 304,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Ultrasound
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,561,012 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 885 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 304,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.