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
| Title |
Rapid on-site cytopathological examination (ROSE) performed by endosonagraphers and its improvement in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions1
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s0102-865020150070000009 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ricardo Leite Ganc, Augusto Pincke Cruz Carbonari, Rogério Colaiacovo, Júlia Araujo, Sheila Filippi, Rodrigo Altenfender Silva, Adhemar Monteiro Pacheco, Lucio Giovanni Battista Rossini, Marc Giovannini |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the diagnosis improvement of EUS-FNA when using ROSE performed by the endosonographer. A retrospective study was conducted. A total of 48 pancreatic solid masses EUS-FNA were divided into two groups according to the availability of on-site cytology (ROSE) - the first 24 patients (group A-without ROSE) and the latter 24 cases (group B-with ROSE). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, complications and inadequacy rate of EUS-FNA were determined and compared. Among the 48 EUS-FNA, the overall performance was: sensitivity 82%; specificity 100%; positive predictive value (PPV) 100%; negative predictive value (NPV) 70% and accuracy 87%. The sensitivity of the Group A was 71%, versus 94% in-group B (p=0.61). Moreover, the negative predictive value was 58% versus 87% (p=0.72). The accuracy rate increased from 79% to 96% (p=0.67) in the ROSE group. The number of punctures was similar between the groups. No major complications were reported. Rapid on-site cytopathological examination, even when performed by the endosonographer, may improve the diagnostic performance in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, regardless of the slight increase in the number of punctures. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 50% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |