↓ Skip to main content

Rapid on-site cytopathological examination (ROSE) performed by endosonagraphers and its improvement in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions.

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
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

Ganc, Ricardo Leite, Carbonari, Augusto Pincke Cruz, Colaiacovo, Rogério, Araujo, Júlia, Filippi, Sheila, Silva, Rodrigo Altenfender, Pacheco Junior, Adhemar Monteiro, Rossini, Lucio Giovanni Battista, Giovannini, Marc

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.

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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%

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
#4,984,892
of 7,003,089 outputs
Outputs from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#32
of 86 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,670
of 316,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,003,089 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 86 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 316,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 53% of its contemporaries.