↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
Correlation between preoperative endoscopic ultrasound and surgical pathology staging of gastric adenocarcinoma: A single institution retrospective review
Published in
Journal of Surgical Oncology, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/jso.24098
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Recent evidence validates the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic ultrasonographic (EUS) staging has been proposed as a useful adjunct in this setting. We performed a retrospective review of patients treated at our institution for gastric adenocarcinoma between July 2005 and January 2014. We identified patients referred for EUS before surgery as part of a prospective treatment plan. Histopathologic staging was compared to EUS staging, with a focus on T- and N-stage. Agreement between the two modalities was examined using kappa-statistics. We identified 614 patients with biopsy-proven gastric adenocarcinoma; 145 underwent curative-intent surgery. Surgical pathology and EUS results were available from 69 patients. The accuracy of EUS for the evaluation of T- and N-stage was 44.9% and 56.5%, respectively. EUS demonstrated greater concordance with histopathology at evaluating T-stage (κ = 0.3469) than N-stage (κ = 0.1316). EUS underestimated T- and N-stage in 40.8% and 30.4% of patients, respectively. EUS seems to correlate poorly with pathology in the preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinoma. In the majority of inaccurate cases, EUS underestimates T-stage and N-stage, limiting its utility in the neoadjuvant setting. J. Surg. Oncol. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 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 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 1 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 20%
Unknown 3 60%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 20%
Engineering 1 20%
Unknown 3 60%
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 23 January 2016.
All research outputs
#21,540,108
of 27,265,018 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Surgical Oncology
#720
of 925 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,242
of 409,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Surgical Oncology
#16
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,265,018 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 925 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 409,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 54% of its contemporaries.