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 |
Outcomes of resections for pancreatic adenocarcinoma with suspected venous involvement: a single center experience
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Surgery, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12893-015-0086-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christoph W. Michalski, Bo Kong, Carsten Jäger, Silke Kloe, Barbara Beier, Rickmer Braren, Irene Esposito, Mert Erkan, Helmut Friess, Jorg Kleeff |
| Abstract |
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients frequently present with borderline resectable disease, which can be due to invasion of the portal/superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV). Here, we analyzed this group of patients, with emphasis on short and long-term outcomes. 156 patients who underwent a resection for PDAC were included in the analysis and sub-stratified into a cohort of patients with PV/SMV resection (n = 54) versus those with standard surgeries (n = 102). While venous resections could be performed safely, there was a trend towards shorter median survival in the PV/SMV resection group (22.7 vs. 15.8 months, p = 0.157). These tumors were significantly larger (3.5 vs 4.3 cm; p = 0.026) and margin-positivity was more frequent (30.4 % vs 44.4 %, p = 0.046). Venous resection was associated with a higher rate of margin positivity and a trend towards shorter survival. However, compared to non-surgical treatment, resection offers the best chance for long term survival. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 20% |
| Researcher | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 60% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,695,263
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#309
of 1,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,321
of 266,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#11
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,320 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 266,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.