↓ Skip to main content

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett's oesophagus

Overview of attention for article published in Gut, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
40 tweeters
patent
2 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
577 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
417 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.
Title
British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett's oesophagus
Published in
Gut, October 2013
DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305372
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca C Fitzgerald, Massimiliano di Pietro, Krish Ragunath, Yeng Ang, Jin-Yong Kang, Peter Watson, Nigel Trudgill, Praful Patel, Philip V Kaye, Scott Sanders, Maria O'Donovan, Elizabeth Bird-Lieberman, Pradeep Bhandari, Janusz A Jankowski, Stephen Attwood, Simon L Parsons, Duncan Loft, Jesper Lagergren, Paul Moayyedi, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, John de Caestecker

Abstract

These guidelines provide a practical and evidence-based resource for the management of patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related early neoplasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was followed to provide a methodological strategy for the guideline development. A systematic review of the literature was performed for English language articles published up until December 2012 in order to address controversial issues in Barrett's oesophagus including definition, screening and diagnosis, surveillance, pathological grading for dysplasia, management of dysplasia, and early cancer including training requirements. The rigour and quality of the studies was evaluated using the SIGN checklist system. Recommendations on each topic were scored by each author using a five-tier system (A+, strong agreement, to D+, strongly disagree). Statements that failed to reach substantial agreement among authors, defined as >80% agreement (A or A+), were revisited and modified until substantial agreement (>80%) was reached. In formulating these guidelines, we took into consideration benefits and risks for the population and national health system, as well as patient perspectives. For the first time, we have suggested stratification of patients according to their estimated cancer risk based on clinical and histopathological criteria. In order to improve communication between clinicians, we recommend the use of minimum datasets for reporting endoscopic and pathological findings. We advocate endoscopic therapy for high-grade dysplasia and early cancer, which should be performed in high-volume centres. We hope that these guidelines will standardise and improve management for patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 417 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 1%
Germany 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 399 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 70 17%
Other 60 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 12%
Student > Bachelor 44 11%
Student > Postgraduate 42 10%
Other 151 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 307 74%
Unspecified 51 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 3%
Engineering 5 1%
Other 23 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 06 June 2019.
All research outputs
#409,613
of 13,465,676 outputs
Outputs from Gut
#230
of 5,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,730
of 182,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gut
#3
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,465,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 182,863 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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 94% of its contemporaries.