↓ Skip to main content

Fecal Impaction in the Emergency Department

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Fecal Impaction in the Emergency Department
Published in
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, August 2016
DOI 10.1097/mcg.0000000000000458
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline Corban, Thomas Sommers, Neil Sengupta, Mike Jones, Vivian Cheng, Elizabeth Friedlander, Andrea Bollom, Anthony Lembo

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence and associated charges of fecal impaction for trends in hospital and patient demographics in emergency departments (ED) across the United States. In 2010, an ICD-9-CM code (560.32) for fecal impaction was introduced, allowing for assessment of fecal impaction incidence. Data were obtained from the National Emergency Department Sample records in which fecal impaction (ICD-9-CM code 560.32) was first listed as a diagnosis in 2011. In 2011, there were 42,481 [95% confidence interval (CI), 39,908-45,054] fecal impaction ED visits, with an overall rate of 32 fecal impaction visits per 100,000 ED visits. Adjusted for inflation in 2014 dollars, the associated mean charge of a fecal impaction ED visit was $3060.47 (95% CI, $2943.02-$3177.92), with an aggregate national charge in the US of $130,010,772 (95% CI, $120,688,659-$139,332,885). All charges were adjusted for inflation and reported in 2014 dollars. Late elders (85+ y) had the highest rate of fecal impaction ED visits, followed by early elders (65 to 84 y). Medicare was the primary payer for the greatest number of fecal impaction ED visits accounting for nearly two thirds of visit payments. This study reports previously unexplored statistics on the number, frequency, and associated charges of ED visits with a primary diagnosis of fecal impaction, a condition found most commonly among elders.

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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 29%
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 36%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 14%
Psychology 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 July 2016.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
#1,920
of 2,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,466
of 381,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
#28
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,753 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 381,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.