↓ Skip to main content

A hydatic cyst of the appendix mimicking a uterine lateral mass: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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 hydatic cyst of the appendix mimicking a uterine lateral mass: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13256-018-1602-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Molka Chemlali, Sarah Sghaier, Montassar Ghalleb, Amira Triki, Jamel Ben Hassouna, Khaled Ben Rahal

Abstract

Hydatic cyst is a zoonotic disease caused by Echinococcus granulosus. It is a public health problem in Tunisia and remains endemic. It occurs in intra-abdominal organs in 10-15% of the cases, particularly in the liver representing the most common affected organ. The aim of the case is to highlight the scarcity of this appendicle origin and to consider it among the differential diagnosis of any intra-abdominal cystic lesion. A 45-year-old Tunisian woman, with no past medical history, was admitted for a pelvic cystic mass. The clinical manifestation as well as the imaging findings were toward a lateral uterine mass. Our patient underwent appendectomy and resection of the mass. The patient had no recurrence at 2 years of follow-up. An extrahepatic hydatid cyst should be recognized among the differential diagnosis of any intra-abdominal cystic lesion. Treatment should be based on surgical excision. Due to the risk of recurrence, a close follow-up is mandatory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 44%
Chemical Engineering 1 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unknown 7 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,379,536
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#1,118
of 3,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,935
of 331,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#22
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,948 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 331,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 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 69% of its contemporaries.