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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Ileocolic intussusception due to a cecal endometriosis: Case report and review of literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diagnostic Pathology, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1746-1596-7-62 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rivkine Emmanuel, Marciano Léa, Polliand Claude, Valenti Antonio, Ziol Marianne, Poncelet Christophe, Barrat Christophe |
| Abstract |
Cecal endometriosis and ileocolic intussusception due to a cecal endometriosis is extremely rare. We report a case of a woman who presented an ileocecal intussusception due to a cecal endometriosis. The patient gave two months history of chronic periombilical pain requiring regular hospital admission and analgesia. The symptoms were not related to menses. A laparotomy was performed and revealed an ileocolic intussusception. The abdominal exploration did not find any endometriosis lesion. Ileocaecal resection was performed. Microscopic examination showed a cystic component, lined by a regular cylindric epithelium. Foci of endometrial tissue were observed in the cecal subserosa and muscularis mucosal, with irregular endometrial glands lined by cylindric epithelium without atypia immunostained with CK7, and characteristic endometrial stroma immunostained with CD10. Cecal endometriosis and ileocolic intussusception due to a cecal endometriosis is extremely rare. Diagnose of etiology remains challenging due to the absence of clinical and radiological specific characteristics. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 55% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
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 15 March 2021.
All research outputs
#17,659,617
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#671
of 1,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,001
of 166,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#9
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 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 1,118 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 166,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.