Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40018475›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Migrated Foreign Body Perforating the Colon: Scope for Colonoscopy.

Aparimita Das, Tarun S Joseph, Gangireddy Siva Sankar Reddy, Amrit Pipara, Sumit Mukhopadhyay

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Aparimita DasGastroenterology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, IND.
Tarun S JosephGastroenterology and Hepatology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, IND.
Gangireddy Siva Sankar ReddyGastroenterology and Hepatology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, IND.
Amrit PiparaSurgical Gastroenterology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, IND.
Sumit MukhopadhyayRadiology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are still commonly used as a method of contraception in many parts of the world. Bowel perforation is a serious complication of IUD use. In most cases of migration, the IUD is removed laparoscopically or by laparotomy. In this case report, we have documented a novel case of copper IUD (Cu-T) migration and sigmoid colon perforation more than 30 years after insertion with nonspecific symptoms. It was removed colonoscopically without complications or the need for surgical intervention. We recommend the colonoscopy approach as the treatment of choice in similar cases.

Indexed as

coloncolonoscopyhysterectomyintrauterine devicemigrationperforation

Identifiers

PMID40018475
PMCPMC11865938

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.