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
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Rapid on-site cytopathological examination (ROSE) performed by endosonagraphers and its improvement in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Cirurgica 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 Junior, 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 47% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
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 21 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,435,228
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#3
of 3 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,196
of 278,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 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 3 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 278,874 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.