↓ Skip to main content

Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for the Treatment of Achalasia: An International Prospective Multicenter Study

Overview of attention for article published in Gastroenterology, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
317 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for the Treatment of Achalasia: An International Prospective Multicenter Study
Published in
Gastroenterology, May 2013
DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.04.057
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Von Renteln, Karl–Hermann Fuchs, Paul Fockens, Peter Bauerfeind, Melina C. Vassiliou, Yuki B. Werner, Gerald Fried, Wolfram Breithaupt, Henriette Heinrich, Albert J. Bredenoord, Jan F. Kersten, Tessa Verlaan, Michael Trevisonno, Thomas Rösch

Abstract

Pilot studies have indicated that peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) might be a safe and effective treatment for achalasia. We performed a prospective, international, multicenter study to determine the outcomes of 70 patients who underwent POEM at 5 centers in Europe and North America. Three months after POEM, 97% of patients were in symptom remission (95% confidence interval, 89%-99%); symptom scores were reduced from 7 to 1 (P < .001) and lower esophageal sphincter pressures were reduced from 28 to 9 mm Hg (P < .001). The percentage of patients in symptom remission at 6 and 12 months was 89% and 82%, respectively. POEM was found to be an effective treatment for achalasia after a mean follow-up period of 10 months.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Chile 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 93 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 14%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Postgraduate 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 25 26%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 65%
Unspecified 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 23 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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
#5,446,210
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Gastroenterology
#4,021
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,321
of 205,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gastroenterology
#47
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 205,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 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 63% of its contemporaries.