Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41137911›Full record

ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026

Migration of ingested fish bone and toothpick focusing on comparative clinicoradiological findings and analysis of diagnostic errors: a structured narrative review.

Wanting Zheng, Xiaojia Wu, Harshal Ripal Karia, Zirong Peng, Haiqi Hu, Ziting Peng, Shuyan Su, Caiyu Zhuang, Ruibin Huang

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

9 authors.

Wanting Zheng *The First Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Xiaojia Wu *The First Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Harshal Ripal KariaShantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Zirong PengShantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Haiqi HuThe First Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Ziting PengThe First Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Shuyan SuThe First Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Caiyu ZhuangThe First Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Ruibin HuangThe First Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China. rbhuang1@stu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIngested sharp foreign body (FB) such as fish bones and toothpicks are a relatively rare event, but may migrate to adjacent or distant organs resulting in serious complications and challenging to diagnose. The aim of this paper is to review the literature about the comparative analysis of clincoradiological findings between migratory fish bones and toothpicks and investigated the frequency and associated factors of diagnostic errors. MATERIALS AND

methodsOur review search identified a total of 96 studies with 107 patients containing case reports of ingested migratory fish bones and toothpicks. We then performed a comparative analysis of patients' characteristics, medical history, diagnostics, therapy, and clinical outcome.

resultsAmong 107 reported cases, 85 (79.4%) involved migrating fish bones and 22 (20.6%) involved toothpicks. The peritoneal cavity was the most common migration site (69/107; 64.5%). Notably, 57.9% of patients (62/107) did not report FB ingestion on admission, and only ten (9.3%) recalled ingestion after postoperative evaluation. Severe complications were observed in 26.2% of cases (28/107). Diagnostic errors occurred in 15 cases (14.0%), with eight missed by imaging and seven misdiagnosed as inflammatory lesions or tumors. Significant differences were noted between fish bones and toothpicks in location, severe complications, and mean length (all P < 0.05).

conclusionsIngested migratory fish bones or toothpicks are a medical emergency capable of causing significant complications, highlighting their importance as a critical differential diagnosis. The diagnostic strategy should prioritize heightened clinical awareness, a detailed history of FB ingestion, and the use of multiplanar reconstruction CT in conjunction with ultrasound.

Indexed as

Bone and BonesDiagnostic ErrorsForeign BodiesForeign-Body MigrationAnimalsFishesHumansTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomographyDiagnostic errorsFish boneForeign bodyToothpick

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.