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 |
Extensive multifocal branch duct IPMN of the pancreas after liver transplantation: is surgery justified?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Medical Research, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40001-015-0117-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vittorio Branchi, Philipp Lingohr, Winfried A Willinek, Alexander Semaan, Hui Zhou, Glen Kristiansen, Günter Klöppel, Jörg C Kalff, Nico Schäfer, Hanno Matthaei |
| Abstract |
Cystic lesions of the pancreas resembling intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) have been reported to develop in an increased rate following liver transplantation and immunosuppression. The cause for this possible association is thus far elusive. We report on a 60-year-old male patient who developed an extensive multicystic change of the entire pancreas, suspicious for IPMN, under follow-up after liver transplantation for secondary sclerosing cholangitis. A total pancreaduodenectomy with splenectomy was performed. The postoperative histopathological assessment revealed a multifocal branch duct IPMN of the gastric subtype showing low-grade dysplasia. In the absence of evidence-based guidelines for the management of suspected IPMNs in liver transplant recipients, each patient's management should be discussed in detail. Prospective studies may help to understand the disease and identify risk factors for malignant transformation in IPMNs after liver transplantation for treatment optimization. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 52% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 43% |
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 02 February 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Medical Research
#728
of 923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,762
of 278,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Medical Research
#16
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 278,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.