↓ Skip to main content

Massive ovarian oedema: a misleading clinical entity

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Massive ovarian oedema: a misleading clinical entity
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13000-016-0469-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikolaos Machairiotis, Nikolaos Machairiotis, Aikaterini Stylianaki, Paraskevi Kouroutou, Polixeni Sarli, Nikolaos Konstantinos Alexiou, Elias Efthymiou, Athanasios Maras, Nikolaos Georgios Alexiou, Spyridon Evaggelos Nikolaou, Nikolaos Courcoutsakis, Eleni Papakonstantinou, Paul Zarogoulidis, Nikolaos Barbetakis, Dimitrios Paliouras, Apostolos Gogakos, Christodoulos Machairiotis

Abstract

Massive ovarian oedema is a rare non-neoplastic clinicopathologic entity has a higher incidence in women during their second and third life decade. The oedema can be presented in one or both ovaries as a result of partial intermittent torsion of the ovarian pedicle that interferes to the venal and lymphatic drainage of the ovary. We present a clinical case of a 16 year old with massive ovarian oedema and we performed a review of the literature. The pathophysiology of this entity is very complex. We tried to perform a complete review of the literature and focus on the complexity of this entity as far as its pathophysiological backround is concerned and as far as its clinical presentation is concerned. In conclusion, massive ovarian oedema is a rare, multi disease mimicking clinical entity, with an acute or progressive clinical presentation. It has also to be a part of our differential diagnosis in cases of acute abdominal pain and we have to try to treat her conservatively, in order to preserve fertility.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 62%
Unspecified 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%

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 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#8,727,865
of 11,338,088 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#404
of 709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,454
of 345,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#20
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,338,088 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 709 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 345,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.