↓ Skip to main content

A Tender Pulsatile Epigastric Mass is NOT Always an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Case Report and Review of Literature.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Radiology Case Reports, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Tender Pulsatile Epigastric Mass is NOT Always an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Case Report and Review of Literature.
Published in
Journal of Radiology Case Reports, October 2010
DOI 10.3941/jrcr.v4i10.458
Pubmed ID
Authors

Osama Moussa, Ahmad Al Samaraee, Rupsha Ray, Colin Nice, Vish Bhattacharya

Abstract

Of greatest concern in the assessment of a patient with a tender pulsatile abdominal mass is the possibility of a leaking or ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA). Other serious abdominal pathologies may demonstrate the same clinical signs but require entirely different treatments. Even amongst patients with proven abdominal aortic aneurysms CT imaging findings may influence the timing and nature of surgery and provide useful prognostic information. We present a case in which a large abdominal tender pulsatile mass was not aortic in origin. The patient had a significantly large tender congested liver associated with right side heart failure due to progressive tricuspid valve regurgitation. We have also discussed the differential diagnoses which may mimic abdominal aneurysms and discussed the role of imaging in resolving these problems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 27%
Other 2 18%
Student > Postgraduate 2 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 64%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
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 December 2020.
All research outputs
#20,940,593
of 23,573,357 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Radiology Case Reports
#130
of 173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,424
of 100,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Radiology Case Reports
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,573,357 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 173 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 100,584 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.