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 |
False positive endobronchial ultrasound-guided real-time transbronchial needle aspiration secondary to bronchial carcinoma in situ at the point of puncture: a case report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1749-8090-7-74 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
José Sanz-Santos, Felipe Andreo, Pere Serra, María Llatjós, Eva Castellà, Julio Astudillo, Eduard Monsó, Juan Ruiz-Manzano |
| Abstract |
Since the development of endobronchial ultrasound-guided real-time needle aspiration (EBUS-rt-TBNA) no false positive (FP) cases have been described. We present the first FP case for EBUS-rt-TBNA secondary to a carcinoma in situ (CIS) in the bronchial point of puncture. A 66-years-old male was referred to our Institution because of a mass in left lower lobe. The bronchoscopy did not show any endobronchial lesion. The cytology of the washing confirmed an unspecified non-small cell lung cancer. An EBUS-rt-TBNA for staging was carried out. No mediastinal nodes over 5 mm length were found but one single left hilar node at station 11 L was sampled. The cytology of the TBNA showed lymphocytes and neoplastic squamous cells. The patient underwent thoracotomy. On the surgical specimen no metastasis on any of the nodes resected were detected but a CIS on the bronchial resection margin was described. A bronchial biopsy confirmed CIS on the bronchial stump. The reported case depicts an unusual situation, we consider EBUS-rt-TBNA an accurate technique if minimal requirements are met. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 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 | 4 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 64% |
| Engineering | 2 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
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 August 2012.
All research outputs
#18,312,024
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#625
of 1,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,827
of 167,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 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 1,208 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 167,805 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.