↓ Skip to main content

A postmenopausal woman with sciatica from broad ligament leiomyoma: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A postmenopausal woman with sciatica from broad ligament leiomyoma: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13256-016-1089-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ya-Chu May Tsai

Abstract

Unilateral lower abdominal pain and/or sciatic nerve pain is a common presentation in the elderly population. The prevalence of broad ligament leiomyoma is <1 % with the prevalence declining after the menopause and it is rare for broad ligament leiomyomas to be clinically significant. Thus, we highlight a case of symptomatic broad ligament leiomyoma in a postmenopausal woman whose symptoms improved after definitive treatment. A 62-year-old postmenopausal Macedonian woman was referred to our gynecological department with unexplained pain in her left leg and left iliac fossa region on walking. There was minimal relief with increasing analgesia use prescribed by the family physician. Investigations revealed an ipsilateral adnexal mass and subsequent treatment with laparoscopic broad ligament myomectomy helped to alleviate her symptoms. Our case highlights the importance of staying mindful of alternate diagnoses when presented with a common presentation of iliac fossa pain and pain in the leg. Although broad ligament leiomyomas are benign tumors, the uncommon symptomatic presentation led us to report and focus some attention on this type of tumor.

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 %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 14 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 13 35%
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 28 October 2018.
All research outputs
#17,823,285
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#1,916
of 3,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,563
of 312,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#36
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,932 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 312,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.