1,721,012 research outputs found

    Current status of peroral cholangioscopy in biliary tract diseases.

    No full text
    Peroral cholangioscopy (POC) is an important tool for the management of a selected group of biliary diseases. Because of its direct visualization, POC allows targeted diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. POC can be performed using a dedicated cholangioscope that is advanced through the accessory channel of a duodenoscope or via the insertion of a small-diameter endoscope directly into the bile duct. POC was first described in the 1970s, but the use of earlier generation devices was substantially limited by the cumbersome equipment setup and high repair costs. For nearly ten years, several technical improvements, including the single-operator system, high-quality images, the development of dedicated accessories and the increased size of the working channel, have led to increased diagnostic accuracy, thus assisting in the differentiation of benign and malignant intraductal lesions, targeting biopsies and the precise delineation of intraductal tumor spread before surgery. Furthermore, lithotripsy of difficult bile duct stones, ablative therapies for biliary malignancies and direct biliary drainage can be performed under POC control. Recent developments of new types of conventional POCs allow feasible, safe and effective procedures at reasonable costs. In the current review, we provide an updated overview of POC, focusing our attention on the main current clinical applications and on areas for future research

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore