↓ Skip to main content

BMJ

A randomised trial of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett’s neoplasia

Overview of attention for article published in Gut, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
213 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
Title
A randomised trial of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett’s neoplasia
Published in
Gut, January 2016
DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310126
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grischa Terheggen, Eva Maria Horn, Michael Vieth, Helmut Gabbert, Markus Enderle, Alexander Neugebauer, Brigitte Schumacher, Horst Neuhaus

Abstract

For endoscopic resection of early GI neoplasia, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) achieves higher rates of complete resection (R0) than endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, ESD is technically more difficult and evidence from randomised trial is missing. We compared the efficacy and safety of ESD and EMR in patients with neoplastic Barrett's oesophagus (BO). BO patients with a focal lesion of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) or early adenocarcinoma (EAC) ≤3 cm were randomised to either ESD or EMR. Primary outcome was R0 resection; secondary outcomes were complete remission from neoplasia, recurrences and adverse events (AEs). There were no significant differences in patient and lesion characteristics between the groups randomised to ESD (n=20) or EMR (n=20). Histology of the resected specimen showed HGIN or EAC in all but six cases. Although R0 resection defined as margins free of HGIN/EAC was achieved more frequently with ESD (10/17 vs 2/17, p=0.01), there was no difference in complete remission from neoplasia at 3 months (ESD 15/16 vs EMR 16/17, p=1.0). During a mean follow-up period of 23.1±6.4 months, recurrent EAC was observed in one case in the ESD group. Elective surgery was performed in four and three cases after ESD and EMR, respectively (p=1.0). Two severe AEs were recorded for ESD and none for EMR (p=0.49). In terms of need for surgery, neoplasia remission and recurrence, ESD and EMR are both highly effective for endoscopic resection of early BO neoplasia. ESD achieves a higher R0 resection rate, but for most BO patients this bears little clinical relevance. ESD is, however, more time consuming and may cause severe AE. NCT1871636.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
Unknown 114 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Master 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 28 24%
Unknown 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 37 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 20 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,323,885
of 23,884,093 outputs
Outputs from Gut
#811
of 7,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,423
of 401,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gut
#10
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,884,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 401,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.