| Title |
European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Gut, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316027 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marco Del Chiaro, Marc Besselink, Lianne Scholten, Marco J Bruno, Djuna L Cahen, Thomas M Gress, Jeanin E van Hooft, Markus M Lerch, Julia Mayerle, Thilo Hackert, Sohei Satoi, Alessandro Zerbi, David Cunningham, Claudio De Angelis, Marc Giovannini, Enrique De-Madaria, Peter Hegyi, Jonas Rosendahl, Helmut Friess, Riccardo Manfredi, Philippe Lévy, Francisco X Real, Alain Sauvanet, Mohammed Abu Hilal, Giovanni Marchegiani, Irene Esposito, Paula Ghaneh, Marc RW Engelbrecht, Paul Fockens, Nadine CM van Huijgevoort, Christopher Wolfgang, Claudio Bassi, Natalya B Gubergrits, Caroline Verbeke, Günter Klöppel, Aldo Scarpa, Giuseppe Zamboni, Anne Marie Lennon, Malin Sund, Nikolaos Kartalis, Lars Grenacher, Massimo Falconi, Urban Arnelo, Kostantin V Kopchak, Kofi Oppong, Colin Mckay, Truls Hauge, Kevin Conlon, Mustapha Adham, Güralp O Ceyhan, Roberto Salvia, Christos Dervenis, Peter Allen, François Paye, Detlef K Bartsch, Matthias Löhr, Massimiliano Mutignani, Johanna Laukkarinen, Richard Schulick, Roberto Valente, Thomas Seufferlein, Gabriele Capurso, Ajith Siriwardena, John P Neoptolemos, Aldis Pukitis, Ralf Segersvärd, A Aghdassi, S Andrianello, P Bossuyt, R Bülow, K Cárdenas-Jaén, P Cortegoso, M Fontana, L Haeberle, M Heckler, A Litvin, K Mann, C Michalski, P Michl, G Nappo, G Perri, S Persson, F Scheufele, F Sclafani, M Schmidt, L Venezia, F Volker, M-P Vullierm, L Wüsten |
| Abstract |
Evidence-based guidelines on the management of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN) are lacking. This guideline is a joint initiative of the European Study Group on Cystic Tumours of the Pancreas, United European Gastroenterology, European Pancreatic Club, European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, European Digestive Surgery, and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. It replaces the 2013 European consensus statement guidelines on PCN. European and non-European experts performed systematic reviews and used GRADE methodology to answer relevant clinical questions on nine topics (biomarkers, radiology, endoscopy, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN), mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN), serous cystic neoplasm, rare cysts, (neo)adjuvant treatment, and pathology). Recommendations include conservative management, relative and absolute indications for surgery. A conservative approach is recommended for asymptomatic MCN and IPMN measuring <40 mm without an enhancing nodule. Relative indications for surgery in IPMN include a main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter between 5 and 9.9 mm or a cyst diameter ≥40 mm. Absolute indications for surgery in IPMN, due to the high-risk of malignant transformation, include jaundice, an enhancing mural nodule >5 mm, and MPD diameter >10 mm. Lifelong follow-up of IPMN is recommended in patients who are fit for surgery. The European evidence-based guidelines on PCN aim to improve the diagnosis and management of PCN. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 303 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 67 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 29 | 10% |
| United States | 28 | 9% |
| Italy | 6 | 2% |
| Colombia | 5 | 2% |
| Sweden | 5 | 2% |
| Mexico | 4 | 1% |
| Australia | 4 | 1% |
| Portugal | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 48 | 16% |
| Unknown | 104 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 183 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 75 | 25% |
| Scientists | 38 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 769 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 769 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 96 | 12% |
| Other | 92 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 74 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 56 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 51 | 7% |
| Other | 183 | 24% |
| Unknown | 217 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 438 | 57% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 19 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 9 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | <1% |
| Other | 37 | 5% |
| Unknown | 251 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 220. 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 08 October 2023.
All research outputs
#179,040
of 25,775,807 outputs
Outputs from Gut
#117
of 7,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,182
of 347,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gut
#2
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,775,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 347,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.