| Title |
How many samples would be optimal for endobronchial cryobiopsy?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-016-5095-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fatih Segmen, Zafer Aktaş, Ayperi Öztürk, Derya Kızılgöz, Aydın Yılmaz, Ibrahim Onur Alıcı, Funda Demirağ, Polat Pehlivanoğlu |
| Abstract |
Cryobiopsy, which provides larger specimens without crush artifact, is a good option for the diagnosis of visible endobronchial tumors. While there are several papers on diagnostic performance, application protocols vary between centers. In this study, we aimed to find the optimal number of cryobiopsies in endobronchial tumors. We prospectively involved cases with a visible endobronchial tumor in which conventional diagnostic measures failed and/or a therapeutic interventional bronchoscopy was planned. Endobronchial tumor was visualized, and four cryobiopsies were taken with a dedicated flexible probe. The samples were evaluated by a pathologist who was blinded to the order of the biopsies. The cumulative performances of one to four cryobiopsies were compared, and a complication analysis was conducted. A total of 50 patients were involved. Four cryobiopsies were taken from 49 patients, and a single biopsy was taken from one case. The sensitivities of one, two, three and four biopsies were 82, 93.9, 93.9 and 95.9 %, respectively. The difference in performance of one and two biopsies was significant (p = 0.031), but the third and fourth biopsies were found to be unnecessary (p = 1.0 for second versus third and p = 1.0 for second versus fourth). Bleeding risk increased when ≥3 cryobiopsies were taken (Odds Ratio 2.758). When the diagnostic benefits and complication rates were considered, two cryobiopsies were found to be optimal for endobronchial tumors. In patients with non-diagnostic conventional bronchoscopy, endobronchial tumors may be diagnosed by cryobiopsy. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 35% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
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 26 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,857,184
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,575
of 6,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,454
of 354,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#97
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,056 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 354,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.