↓ Skip to main content

Symptoms and diagnostic criteria of acquired Megacolon - a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Gastroenterology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Symptoms and diagnostic criteria of acquired Megacolon - a systematic literature review
Published in
BMC Gastroenterology, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12876-018-0753-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tahleesa Cuda, Ronny Gunnarsson, Alan de Costa

Abstract

Acquired Megacolon (AMC) is a condition involving persistent dilatation and lengthening of the colon in the absence of organic disease. Diagnosis depends on subjective radiological, endoscopic or surgical findings in the context of a suggestive clinical presentation. This review sets out to investigate diagnostic criteria of AMC. The literature was searched using the databases - PubMed, Medline via OvidSP, ClinicalKey, Informit and the Cochrane Library. Primary studies, published in English, with more than three patients were critically appraised based on study design, methodology and sample size. Exclusion criteria were studies with the following features: post-operative; megarectum-predominant; paediatric; organic megacolon; non-human; and failure to exclude organic causes. A review of 23 articles found constipation, abdominal pain, distension and gas distress were predominant symptoms. All ages and both sexes were affected, however, symptoms varied with age. Changes in anorectal manometry, histology and colonic transit are consistently reported. Studies involved varying patient numbers, demographics and data acquisition methods. Outcome data investigating the diagnosis of AMC must be interpreted in light of the limitations of the low-level evidence studies published to date. Proposed diagnostic criteria include: (1) the exclusion of organic disease; (2) a radiological sigmoid diameter of ~ 10 cm; (3) and constipation, distension, abdominal pain and/or gas distress. A proportion of patients with AMC may be currently misdiagnosed as having functional gastrointestinal disorders. Our conclusions are inevitably tentative, but will hopefully stimulate further research on this enigmatic condition.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Decision Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 February 2019.
All research outputs
#5,694,030
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Gastroenterology
#346
of 1,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,625
of 440,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Gastroenterology
#7
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,765 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 440,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.