↓ Skip to main content

The acceptability of high resolution anoscopy examination in patients attending a tertiary referral centre

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
The acceptability of high resolution anoscopy examination in patients attending a tertiary referral centre
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4475-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anke De-Masi, Esther Davis, Tamzin Cuming, Noreen Chindawi, Francesca Pesola, Carmelina Cappello, Susan Chambers, Julie Bowring, Adam N. Rosenthal, Peter Sasieni, Mayura Nathan

Abstract

High resolution anoscopy (HRA) examination is regarded as the best method for the management of anal high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions to prevent anal squamous carcinoma. However, little is known about the acceptability of this procedure. This analysis looks at patient experience of HRA examination and ablative treatment under local anaesthetic. Patients took part in anonymised feedback of their experience immediately after their HRA examinations and/or treatments. A standard questionnaire was used that included assessment of pain and overall satisfaction scores as well as willingness to undergo future HRA examinations. Four hundred four (89.4%) responses were received and all responses were analysed. The group consisted of 119 females (29.4%) and 261 males (64.6%) with median age of 45 years (IQR = 19) and 45 years (IQR = 21) respectively, and included 58 new cases, 53 treatment cases and 202 surveillance cases. 158 patients (39.1%) had at least one biopsy during their visits. The median pain score was 2 [Inter Quartile Range (IQR) 3] on a visual analogue scale of 0 to 10, where 0 indicated no pain / discomfort and 10 indicated severe pain. The median pain score was 2 (IQR 2) in men and 4 (IQR = 3) in women [Dunn's Test = 4.3, p < 0.0001] and 3 (IQR 4.5) in treatment cases. Problematic pain defined as a pain score of ≥7 occurred more frequently in women (14%) than in men (6%), [Chi square test (chi2) = 5.6, p = 0.02]. Patient satisfaction with the care they received, measured on a scale of 0 (not happy) to 10 (very happy) found the median score to be 10 with 76% reporting a score of 10. Out of 360 responses, 98% of women and 99% of men said that they would be willing to have a future HRA examination. In this cohort, the overall pain scores were low and similar across appointment types. However, women had a higher pain score, including troublesome pain levels. Despite this, both women and men were equally satisfied with their care and were willing to have a future examination. The results of the analysis show that the procedure is acceptable to patient groups. A small number of women may need general anaesthesia for their examinations/treatment.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 16 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,961,944
of 23,052,509 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,469
of 8,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,921
of 325,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#54
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,052,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,371 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 325,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 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 74% of its contemporaries.