↓ Skip to main content

A percutaneous biopsy technique for patients with suspected biliary or pancreatic cancer without a radiographic mass

Overview of attention for article published in Abdominal Radiology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
13 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.
Article details
Title
A percutaneous biopsy technique for patients with suspected biliary or pancreatic cancer without a radiographic mass
Published in
Abdominal Radiology, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s002619900195
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Treatment of malignant pancreatic and/or biliary strictures requires tissue diagnosis. Since cytologic brushings at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) of these strictures has a poor sensitivity for malignancy (30-83%) (see ME Ryan. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1991;37(2):139-143; and MB Cohen, Wittchow RJ, Johlin FC, et al. Mod Pathol 1995;8:498-502), tissue diagnosis must be obtained by another route. We report our experience of percutaneous biopsy of malignant pancreatic and/or biliary strictures even when no radiographic mass is present. At ERCP, five patients demonstrated pancreatic and/or biliary duct strictures, had atypical cytological brushings, and had their strictures stented. No mass to account for the strictures could be identified on CT. These five patients underwent percutaneous biopsy of the persistent material by CT within 10 days of the ERCP. Two patients had adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. One patient had malignant lymphoma and another had cholangiocarcinoma. One patient had inflammatory cells and was followed. If the diagnosis of malignancy cannot be made at the time of the ERCP sampling, then our experience suggests that a percutaneous biopsy should be performed even if a mass is not present using the stent as a target.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 3 23%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Unknown 5 38%
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 19 June 2015.
All research outputs
#12,359,716
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from Abdominal Radiology
#224
of 703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,728
of 270,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Abdominal Radiology
#13
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 703 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 270,143 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.