ArticleThe American journal of case reports2024
Unintentional Plastic Blister Ingestion Leading to Intestinal Perforation: A Report of Two Cases.
Article in The American journal of case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intestinal perforation secondary to ingested chicken bone: case report and literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Unintentional medication-blister ingestion is rare but frequently leads to intestinal perforation. The diagnosis of intestinal perforation following blister ingestion is often delayed because of an unreliable history and nonspecific clinical presentation. The purpose of this case report is to raise awareness about a rare but difficult diagnosis and its importance in avoiding potentially fatal events. CASE REPORT Herein, we describe successful cases of surgical and endoscopic removal after blister ingestion. The first case was that of a polymorbid 75-year-old man who presented with acute onset of abdominal pain in the right upper quadrant and epigastric regions. No indication of the cause was observed on initial computed tomography (CT). The patient developed an acute abdomen, and emergency laparotomy was performed, during which 2 small perforations were observed in the terminal ileum, and an empty tablet blister was retrieved. The second patient was a 55-year-old man who presented with a considerable lack of awareness. On the initial CT, a subdural hematoma, aspiration, and an unidentified foreign body in the stomach were observed. Gastroscopy was performed after emergency craniotomy. In addition to the initial foreign body, a second object, which had gone unnoticed on the initial CT, was found and removed from the esophagus. CONCLUSIONS With an increased risk of perforation and difficult clinical and radiological diagnoses, prophylactic measures and special awareness of high-risk patients are particularly important.
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.