↓ Skip to main content

Imaging techniques for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease: Joint ECCO and ESGAR evidence-based consensus guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Crohn's and Colitis Supplements, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
557 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
533 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
Imaging techniques for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease: Joint ECCO and ESGAR evidence-based consensus guidelines
Published in
Journal of Crohn's and Colitis Supplements, August 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.02.020
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Panes, Y. Bouhnik, W. Reinisch, J. Stoker, S.A. Taylor, D.C. Baumgart, S. Danese, S. Halligan, B. Marincek, C. Matos, L. Peyrin-Biroulet, J. Rimola, G. Rogler, G. van Assche, S. Ardizzone, A. Ba-Ssalamah, M.A. Bali, D. Bellini, L. Biancone, F. Castiglione, R. Ehehalt, R. Grassi, T. Kucharzik, F. Maccioni, G. Maconi, F. Magro, J. Martín-Comín, G. Morana, D. Pendsé, S. Sebastian, A. Signore, D. Tolan, J.A. Tielbeek, D. Weishaupt, B. Wiarda, A. Laghi

Abstract

The management of patients with IBD requires evaluation with objective tools, both at the time of diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease, to determine the location, extension, activity and severity of inflammatory lesions, as well as, the potential existence of complications. Whereas endoscopy is a well-established and uniformly performed diagnostic examination, the implementation of radiologic techniques for assessment of IBD is still heterogeneous; variations in technical aspects and the degrees of experience and preferences exist across countries in Europe. ECCO and ESGAR scientific societies jointly elaborated a consensus to establish standards for imaging in IBD using magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasonography, and including also other radiologic procedures such as conventional radiology or nuclear medicine examinations for different clinical situations that include general principles, upper GI tract, colon and rectum, perineum, liver and biliary tract, emergency situation, and the postoperative setting. The statements and general recommendations of this consensus are based on the highest level of evidence available, but significant gaps remain in certain areas such as the comparison of diagnostic accuracy between different techniques, the value for therapeutic monitoring, and the prognostic implications of particular findings.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 533 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 521 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 72 14%
Other 69 13%
Student > Postgraduate 57 11%
Student > Master 52 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 9%
Other 124 23%
Unknown 110 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 303 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 2%
Engineering 12 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 2%
Other 38 7%
Unknown 139 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 November 2013.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Crohn's and Colitis Supplements
#1,492
of 2,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,644
of 210,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Crohn's and Colitis Supplements
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 210,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.