↓ Skip to main content

Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism secondary to urinary retention: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism secondary to urinary retention: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13256-018-1605-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tatsushi Kawada, Takashi Yoshioka, Motoo Araki, Hiroyuki Nose, Tadashi Oeda

Abstract

Pulmonary embolism occurs when a blood thrombus forms and travels from a vein in the body to an artery in the lung. Thrombi often develop in one of the deep veins of the legs, thighs, or pelvis, a condition known as deep vein thrombosis. In this report, we describe a rare instance of a patient who developed deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism secondary to urinary retention, and we also review some of the literature. A 75-year-old Japanese man visited our hospital with the complaint of lower extremity weakness. A physical examination revealed bilateral leg edema. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography showed thrombi in both the bilateral intrapelvic veins and the right pulmonary artery, with an extremely distended bladder. We diagnosed deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism due to urinary retention, which was attributed to detrusor insufficiency owing to both taking an anticholinergic drug and neurogenic bladder. The patient was immediately started on both management of voiding dysfunction and anticoagulant therapy. We encountered a patient with deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism secondary to urinary retention that could have been fatal. In such cases, clinicians should always take into account appropriate management of voiding dysfunction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 9%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2019.
All research outputs
#14,970,944
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#1,374
of 3,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,435
of 331,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#27
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,948 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.