↓ Skip to main content

Chilaiditi syndrome – a rare case of pneumoperitoneum in the emergency department: a case report

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Chilaiditi syndrome – a rare case of pneumoperitoneum in the emergency department: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13256-018-1804-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed M. Gad, Muneer J. Al-Husseini, Sami Salahia, Anas M. Saad, Ramy Amin

Abstract

Pneumoperitoneum poses an important diagnostic sign determining the urgency of management of patients in an emergency department. Chilaiditi sign is a rare radiologic finding of large intestines transposition between the diaphragm and the liver. If the patient becomes symptomatic, then the condition is called Chilaiditi syndrome. We present a rare case of a 49-year-old Egyptian man who presented to our emergency department complaining of cough and vague abdominal discomfort who was found to have Chilaiditi syndrome diagnosed radiologically by computed tomography scan. He was conservatively managed rather than undergoing invasive non-warranted diagnostic and therapeutic testing that may have resulted in increased morbidity. A review of the current literature on Chilaiditi syndrome is provided with a focus on increasing the familiarity of health care professionals with the conditions and stressing the importance of a physical examination in evaluating patients with what appears to be air under the diaphragm.

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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Student > Master 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 64%
Unknown 5 36%
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
#15,018,906
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#1,382
of 3,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,399
of 311,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#42
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,967 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 311,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 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 55% of its contemporaries.