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 |
A case of late lymph node metastasis after three endoscopic mucosal resections of intramucosal gastric cancers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1477-7819-12-339 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eisuke Booka, Tsunehiro Takahashi, Kazunori Tokizawa, Yusuke Uchi, Akihiko Okamura, Kazumasa Fukuda, Rieko Nakamura, Norihito Wada, Hirofumi Kawakubo, Yoshiro Saikawa, Tai Omori, Hiroya Takeuchi, Aya Sasaki, Shuji Mikami, Koichiro Kumai, Kaori Kameyama, Yuko Kitagawa |
| Abstract |
We describe a patient with solitary lymph node (LN) metastasis after three endoscopic mucosal resections (EMRs) in which a gastrointestinal stromal tumor was difficult to differentiate from the carcinoid and lymphoma tumors. A 77-year-old man underwent three EMRs at 62, 72, and 75 years of age, and all resections were determined to be curative. However, 2 years after the last EMR, screening abdominal ultrasonography detected a 20-mm solitary tumor at the lesser curvature of the upper stomach. Laparoscopic tumor resection confirmed the pathological diagnosis. Intraoperative pathological diagnosis showed that the adenocarcinoma was compatible with recurrence of gastric cancer; thus, total gastrectomy with D1 lymphadenectomy was performed. Metastasis was not recognized by pathological examination but was detected by preoperative radiological examinations of the LN. We report a rare recurrence case after several EMRs of intramucosal gastric cancers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 14% |
| Researcher | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 43% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
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 12 November 2014.
All research outputs
#15,310,081
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#610
of 2,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,931
of 258,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#36
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,042 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 258,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.