↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, April 2017
DOI 10.2147/ceg.s132004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramkaji Baniya, Sunil Upadhaya, Seetharamprasad Madala, Subash Chandra Subedi, Tabrez Shaik Mohammed, Ghassan Bachuwa

Abstract

The failure rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for biliary cannulation is approximately 6%-7% in cases of obstructive jaundice. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is the procedure of choice in such cases. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EGBD) is a novel technique that allows biliary drainage by echoendoscopy and fluoroscopy using a stent from the biliary tree to the gastrointestinal tract. Information in PubMed, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane review were analyzed to obtain studies comparing EGBD and PTBD. Six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Technical (odds ratio (OR): 0.34; confidence interval (CI) 0.10-1.14; p=0.05) and clinical (OR: 1.48; CI 0.46-4.79; p=0.51) success rates were not statistically significant between the EGBD and PTBD groups. Mild adverse events were nonsignificantly different (OR: 0.36; CI 0.10-1.24; p=0.11) but not the moderate-to-severe adverse events (OR: 0.16; CI 0.08-0.32; p≤0.00001) and total adverse events (OR: 0.34; CI 0.20-0.59; p≤0.0001). EGBD is equally effective but safer than PTBD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 19%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 62%
Mathematics 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Unknown 11 30%
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 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,153,882
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#86
of 307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,039
of 309,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 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 307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 309,584 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.