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 |
Cap-assisted hemoclip application with forward-viewing endoscope for hemorrhage induced by endoscopic sphincterotomy: a prospective case series study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Gastroenterology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12876-015-0367-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Feng Liu, Guang-Yong Wang, Zhao-Shen Li |
| Abstract |
Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is a therapeutic technique developed as an advanced application of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). An important adverse event associated with this procedure is hemorrhage, which may sometimes be uncontrollable. We sought to examine whether cap-assisted hemoclip application is effective in controlling ES-induced hemorrhage. In this prospective study, we investigated the outcomes in 10 patients who had uncontrolled ES-induced hemorrhage and were treated by cap-assisted application of hemoclip with a forward-viewing endoscope. Nine of the 10 investigated patients were successfully treated using the cap-assisted hemoclip technique with forward-viewing endoscope, yielding a success rate of 90 %. The patient with hemorrhage non-responsive to hemoclipping required catheter embolization of the bleeding artery after its identification by digital subtraction angiography. One of the 10 patients developed mild pancreatitis after the procedure, but was successfully managed conservatively. Cap-assisted hemoclip application with a forward-viewing endoscope appears to be an effective therapeutic modality for achieving hemostasis in cases of ES-induced hemorrhage, without the occurrence of any severe adverse events; we believe that this method should be considered as an option in the management of ES-induced hemorrhage. |
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 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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Librarian | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 29% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 64% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 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 15 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Gastroenterology
#1,126
of 1,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,809
of 279,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Gastroenterology
#27
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 279,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.