ArticleScience progress
Spontaneous colonic perforation in adults: Evaluation of a pooled case series.
Article in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Stercoral colitis: CT imaging findings and clinical risk factors.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Colon perforation due to collagenous colitis: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2023Article
- Risk Factors of Gastrointestinal Perforation with a Poor Prognosis.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of the risk of gastrointestinal perforation between patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis: A nationwide cohort study in Asia.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Fecal Scrotal Abscess Secondary to Spontaneous Retroperitoneal Perforation of Ascending Colon.Case reports in medicine · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spontaneous colonic perforation in adults (SCPA) is rare but important. Its clinicopathological features and outcomes remain unclear. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to explore and investigate the clinicopathological characteristics, clinical outcomes and potential risk factors for patients with SCPA. Data of seven patients with SCPA treated in our hospitals from January 2008 to December 2017, and 221 cases from research databases before 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The description of SCPA included stercoral perforation of the colon (SPC), idiopathic perforation of the colon (IPC) and spontaneous colonic perforation (SCP) in the study. All SCPA patients presented with unexplained abdominal pain and peritonitis. The median age was 62.5 years. The definite diagnosis preoperatively was 20.6%. The commonest lesion location was sigmoid colon and Hartmann's operation accounted for 59.3%. Histopathology of stercoral perforation (HSP) and histopathology of idiopathic perforation (HIP) were two histopathological findings. Postoperative complication was 67.7% and mortality was 31.1%. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that chronic constipation was an independent risk factor for histopathological features (
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.