↓ Skip to main content

Clinical value of endoluminal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of rectovaginal fistula

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Imaging, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

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
Clinical value of endoluminal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of rectovaginal fistula
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12880-016-0131-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hao-Qiang Yin, Chen Wang, Xin Peng, Fang Xu, Ya-Juan Ren, Yong-Qing Chao, Jin-Gen Lu, Song Wang, Hu-Sheng Xiao

Abstract

Rectovaginal fistula (RVF) refers to a pathological passage between the rectum and vagina, which is a public health challenge. This study was aimed to explore the clinical value of endoluminal biplane ultrasonography in the diagnosis of rectovaginal fistula (RVF). Thirty inpatients and outpatients with suspected RVF from January 2006 to June 2013 were included in the study, among whom 28 underwent surgical repair. All 28 patients underwent preoperative endoluminal ultrasonography, and the obtained diagnostic results were compared with the corresponding surgical results. All of the internal openings located at the anal canal and rectum of the 28 patients and confirmed during surgery were revealed by preoperative endosonography, which showed a positive predictive value of 100 %. Regarding the 30 internal openings located in the vagina during surgery, the positive predictive value of preoperative endosonography was 93 %. The six cases of simple fistulas confirmed during surgery were revealed by endosonography; for the 22 cases of complex fistula confirmed during surgery, the positive predictive value of endosonography was 90 %. Surgery confirmed 14 cases of anal fistula and 14 cases of RVF, whereas preoperative endoluminal ultrasonography suggested 16 cases of anal fistula and 12 cases of RVF, resulting in positive predictive values of 92.3 and 93 %, respectively. The use of endoluminal biplane ultrasonography in the diagnosis of RVF can accurately determine the internal openings in the rectum or vagina and can relatively accurately identify concomitant branches and abscesses located in the rectovaginal septum. Thus, it is a good imaging tool for examining internal and external anal sphincter injuries and provides useful information for preoperative preparation and postoperative evaluation.

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 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 4 22%
Researcher 3 17%
Unspecified 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 61%
Unspecified 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
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 14 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,616,159
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#344
of 604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,273
of 303,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 604 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. 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 303,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 54% of its contemporaries.