↓ Skip to main content

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

Overview of attention for article published in this source, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 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
Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones
Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003327.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dasari, Bobby VM, Tan, Chuan Jin, Gurusamy, Kurinchi Selvan, Martin, David J, Kirk, Gareth, McKie, Lloyd, Diamond, Tom, Taylor, Mark A

Abstract

Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 223 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 16%
Other 35 15%
Student > Postgraduate 28 12%
Student > Master 28 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 10%
Other 62 27%
Unknown 16 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 158 69%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 18 8%
Unknown 30 13%