↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: patient selection and special considerations

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: patient selection and special considerations
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, July 2017
DOI 10.2147/ceg.s120395
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Emmanuel, Shraddha Gulati, Margaret Burt, Bu’Hussain Hayee, Amyn Haji

Abstract

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc resection of large complex colorectal superficial neoplastic lesions, resulting in very low rates of local recurrence, high-quality pathologic specimens for accurate histopathologic diagnosis and potentially curative treatment of early adenocarcinoma without resorting to major surgical resection. The safety and efficacy of the technique, which was pioneered in the upper gastrointestinal tract, has been established by the consistently impressive outcomes from expert centers in Japan and some other eastern countries. However, ESD is challenging to perform in the colorectum and there is a significant risk of complications, particularly in the early stages of the learning curve. Early studies from western centers raised concerns about the high complication rates, and the impressive results from Japanese centers were not replicated. As a result, many western endoscopists are skeptical about the role of ESD and few centers have incorporated the technique into their practice. Nevertheless, although the distribution of expertise, referral centers and modes of practice may differ in Japan and western countries, ESD has an important role and can be safely and effectively incorporated into western practice. Key to achieving this is meticulous lesion assessment and selection, appropriate referral to centers with the necessary expertise and experience and application of the appropriate technique individualized to the patient. This review discusses the advantages, risks and benefits of ESD to treat colorectal lesions and the importance of preprocedure lesion assessment and in vivo diagnosis and outlines a pragmatic rationale for appropriate lesion selection as well as the patient, technical and institutional factors that should be considered.

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 31%
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 14 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,110,957
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#232
of 311 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,856
of 327,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 311 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. 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 327,299 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 3 of them.