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.
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.
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.
- Intravascular ultrasound-guided retrieval of a fish bone embedded in the inferior vena cava: a case report.CVIR endovascular · 2026Article
- Occult fish bone ingestion inducing cross-site injury: a rare case report of gastric bleeding and jejunal perforation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
41137911What 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.