ArticleBMC gastroenterology2020
Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute intestinal obstruction due to sponge bezoar in a patient with a history of eating disorders: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Intestinal perforation secondary to ingested chicken bone: case report and literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- An Adolescent With a Migrated V-Shaped Wire Into the Neck: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of sharp esophageal foreign bodies in elderly patients: a retrospective study from Wuhan, China.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A Killer in Disguise: Button Battery Ingestions in Acute Care.Current pharmaceutical design · 2025Review
- Imaging approach to ingested foreign bodies in the neck.Neuroradiology · 2024Review
- Acute intestinal obstruction secondary to ingested foreign body in an adult with autism spectrum disorder: A rare case report and review of literature.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Accidental Sewing Pin Ingestion by a Tailor: A Case Report and Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Patient characteristics, outcomes and hospital-level healthcare costs of foreign body ingestion from an Australian, non-prison referral centre.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Management strategy of a carotid-esophageal fistula with a right common carotid artery pseudoaneurysm due to chicken bone ingestion: A case report and literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Intentional Ingestion of a Foreign Body - Why We Need Psychiatrists.Middle East journal of digestive diseases · 2023Article
- Foreign body ingestion: Is intervention always a necessity?Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Accidental ingestion of an endodontic file: A case report and literary review.Radiology case reports · 2022Article
- A rare case of abdominal foreign bodies; laparoscopic removal of a sewing needle.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Do not open wide; accidentally swallowed dental mold causing bowel obstruction. A case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2022Article
- Dental Prosthesis in Esophagus: A Right Cervicotomic Approach.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Accidental or intentional ingestion of toothbrushes: experience with 8 adult patients.Emergency radiology · 2022Article
- Endoscopic management of intentional foreign body ingestion: experience from a UK centre.Frontline gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Foreign Body Ingestion in Neurologically Impaired Children: A Challenging Diagnosis and Management in Pediatric Surgery.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsPrevious reports of foreign-body ingestion focused primarily on accidental ingestion and very few studies focused on intentional ingestion of foreign body (FB) in China. Our study aimed to compare the prevalence of different age, gender, types, locations and management of FB ingested between intentional ingestion and accidental ingestion of FB in Northern China.
methodsA retrospective case series studied all patients with suspected FB ingestion in Digestive Endoscopy Center of Beijing Friendship Hospital, between January 2011 and January 2019. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Group A included the patients who intentionally ingested FBs, and Group B included the patients who accidentally ingested FBs. Patients' database (demographics, past medical history, characteristics of FB, endoscopic findings and treatments) were reviewed. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS software.
resultsGroup A consisted of 77 prisoners, 2 suspects and 11 psychologically disabled persons. Group B consisted of 1020 patients with no prisoners, suspects or psychologically disabled persons. In Group A, there were no food-related foreign bodies, and the majority of FBs were metallic objects (54.44%). However in Group B, food-related FBs were the most common (91.37%). In Group A, 58 cases (64.44%) were located in the stomach, while in Group B, 893 cases (87.55%) were located in the esophagus (P < 0.05). 1096 patients successfully underwent endoscopic removal and 14 failed, including 9 cases in Group A and 5 cases in Group B. The duration of FBs impaction was longer in Group A than that in Group B (P < 0.05).
conclusionsIn our study, the patients who intentionally ingested FB were mainly prisoners, FBs were mostly sharp metallic objects, the duration of FBs impaction was longer, and the rate of successful endoscopic treatment was lower than that of the general population. Attention should be focused on these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.