Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 462

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Indications, methods, and outcomes of percutaneous liver biopsy in England and Wales: an audit by the British Society of Gastroenterology and the Royal College of Physicians of London.

Open access
Gilmore, I T, Burroughs, A, Murray-Lyon, I M, Williams, R, Jenkins, D, Hopkins, A·1995·Gut

Abstract

The liver section of the British Society of Gastroenterology and the research unit of the Royal College of Physicians collaborated to set up a nationwide audit to investigate the practice of percutaneous liver biopsy in England and Wales. Each of 189 health districts in England and Wales was approached to provide a list of 10 consecutive percutaneous biopsies performed during 1991, and details of demographic data, indications, suspected diagnosis, investigations, biopsy technique, outcome, and influence on patient management were collected. Data were retrieved on 1500 (79%). The age distribution showed 6% of biopsies were done in those over 80 years of age and as many over 90 as under 10 years of age. Suspected malignancy and chronic liver disease each contributed one third of the indications. In 34% the procedure was carried out by radiologists under ultrasound image control. The remainder were done by general physicians and gastroenterologists, with the operator in the second group being more senior and experienced. The Trucut biopsy needle accounted for two thirds of biopsies, the remainder being the Menghini type. For both needles the samples were recorded as excellent or satisfactory in 83% and inadequate in only 5%. Bleeding complicated 26 procedures (1.7%), requiring transfusion in 11, and was commoner when clotting was impaired or serum bilirubin raised. There were two definite and three possible procedure related, given an overall mortality of 0.13-0.33%. The diagnosis made before biopsy was confirmed in 63% of patients, and the clinician found the biopsy helpful in treatment in 75%. Day case biopsy and techniques to reduce the risk of bleeding were surprisingly rare in this series, which has given a unique opportunity to examine everyday practice across a wide range of hospitals.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gut.36.3.437

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 462

Metadata

Authors
Gilmore, I. T., Burroughs, A., Murray-Lyon, I. M., Williams, R., Jenkins, D., & Hopkins, A.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1995-03-01
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
437-441
ISSN
0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2172076494
Cited by
462
References
11
FWCI
6.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Indications, methods, and outcomes of percutaneous liver biopsy in England and Wales: an audit by the British Society of Gastroenterology and the Royal College of Physicians of London. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.36.3.437
The paper
Gilmore, I. T., Burroughs, A., Murray-Lyon, I. M., Williams, R., Jenkins, D., & Hopkins, A. (1995). Indications, methods, and outcomes of percutaneous liver biopsy in England and Wales: an audit by the British Society of Gastroenterology and the Royal College of Physicians of London. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.36.3.437

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.