↓ Skip to main content

Radial probe endobronchial ultrasound using a guide sheath for peripheral lung lesions in beginners

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Radial probe endobronchial ultrasound using a guide sheath for peripheral lung lesions in beginners
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12890-018-0704-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jung Seop Eom, Jeong Ha Mok, Insu Kim, Min Ki Lee, Geewon Lee, Hyemi Park, Ji Won Lee, Yeon Joo Jeong, Won-Young Kim, Eun Jung Jo, Mi Hyun Kim, Kwangha Lee, Ki Uk Kim, Hye-Kyung Park

Abstract

The diagnostic yields and safety profiles of transbronchial lung biopsy have not been evaluated in inexperienced physicians using the combined modality of radial probe endobronchial ultrasound and a guide sheath (EBUS-GS). This study assessed the utility and safety of EBUS-GS during the learning phase by referring to a database of performed EBUS-GS procedures. From December 2015 to January 2017, all of the consecutive patients who underwent EBUS-GS were registered. During the study period, two physicians with no previous experience performed the procedure. To assess the diagnostic yields, learning curve, and safety profile of EBUS-GS performed by these inexperienced physicians, the first 100 consecutive EBUS-GS procedures were included in the evaluation. The overall diagnostic yield of EBUS-GS performed by two physicans in 200 patients with a peripheral lung lesion was 73.0%. Learning curve analyses showed that the diagnostic yields were stable, even when the procedure was performed by beginners. Complications related to EBUS-GS occurred in three patients (1.5%): pneumothorax developed in two patients (1%) and resolved spontaneously without chest tube drainage; another patient (0.5%) developed a pulmonary infection after EBUS-GS. There were no cases of pneumothorax requiring chest tube drainage, severe hemorrhage, respiratory failure, premature termination of the procedure, or procedure-related mortality. EBUS-GS is a safe and stable procedure with an acceptable diagnostic yield, even when performed by physicians with no previous experience.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Unspecified 1 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 6 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 20%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Psychology 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 7 47%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,529,980
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1,615
of 1,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,772
of 330,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#38
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 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 1,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. 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 330,840 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 42 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.