↓ Skip to main content

Contrast meals and malrotation in children—metal markers for improved accuracy

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Radiology, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Contrast meals and malrotation in children—metal markers for improved accuracy
Published in
Pediatric Radiology, November 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00247-012-2503-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerrit Dekker, Savvas Andronikou, Jaco Greyling, Brand Louw, Andrew Brandt

Abstract

Upper gastrointestinal contrast studies in children may cause false-positive or -negative diagnosis of intestinal malrotation from rotation of the patient. To alleviate this problem, skin markers can be used to reduce rotation of children undergoing this procedure, e.g., two metal markers (sheathed and sealed hypodermic needles) can be fixed onto the skin for gastro-intestinal contrast studies. We reviewed two Katz criteria influenced by patient rotation: duodenojejunal junction on or to the right of the left pedicle and pylorus to the left of the midline. A test group was positioned using markers; a control group without markers was positioned conventionally. Markers during a pilot study were applied, but positioning was done by helpers who had no on-screen visualization. In the test group, only 1 child (3%; n = 39) had a feature of malrotation. In the control group, there were features of malrotation in 12 children (25%; n = 48). No other features of malrotation were seen. The pilot study showed radiographic rotation with markers projecting off the midline in 78% of 58 children. This resulted in 48% of 58 patients having false features of malrotation. The use of metal skin markers results in reduction of rotational errors that could have caused false diagnosis of intestinal malrotation in children.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 31%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 69%
Unknown 4 31%
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 March 2013.
All research outputs
#18,332,122
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#1,534
of 2,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,268
of 276,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#11
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,072 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 276,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.