Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31852071›Full record

ArticleMedicine2019

Case report: successful endoscopic treatment of a large bowel perforation caused by chicken bone ingestion.

Miroslav Simunic, Ivan Zaja, Zarko Ardalic, Radoslav Stipic, Marina Maras-Simunic

Open access · goldAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Miroslav SimunicDepartment of Gastroenterology.
Ivan ZajaDepartment of Gastroenterology.
Zarko ArdalicDepartment of Gastroenterology.
Radoslav StipicDepartment of Surgery.
Marina Maras-SimunicDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Centre Split, Split, Croatia.
University of Split · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleLarge bowel perforations by a foreign body are rarely diagnosed pre-operatively due to non-specific clinical symptoms. The safety and efficacy of foreign body removal via upper endoscopy is well-established and strongly recommended. There is far less experience of endoscopic treatment of sharp foreign bodies impacted in lower parts of gastrointestinal tract. PATIENT CONCERNS: The patient was 78-year-old female with abdominal pain and nausea. Symptoms had begun 48 hours prior to hospital admission. She had lost over 10 kg of body weight in the previous couple of months DIAGNOSIS:: A multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) examination of the abdomen revealed mural thickening and enhancement of the cecum with haziness and linear areas of high attenuation in the pericecal fat tissue. A colonoscopy showed, the clear presence of a sharp 5.5-cm-long chicken bone perforating the cecal wall at the antemesenteric site close to the Bauchini valve.

interventionsA quarter of the bone that had penetrated the cecal wall was pulled out with a flexible colonoscopy using a polypectomy snare. Due to the form and length of the bone, it was withdrawn through the entire colon, using pointed end trailing. OUTCOMES: The patient was discharged three days after colonoscopy with normal laboratory results and without any pain. LESSONS: In cases where sharp foreign bodies stuck into the large bowel, it is highly advisable to try to remove them via colonoscopy, before deciding to resolve the issue through a surgical intervention.

Indexed as

CecumAgedCecal DiseasesColonoscopyEatingFemaleForeign BodiesHumansIntestinal PerforationMultidetector Computed Tomography

Identifiers

PMID31852071
PMCPMC6922534
OpenAlexW2996675237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.