↓ Skip to main content

Hydatid cysts in muscles: clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and management of this atypical presentation

Overview of attention for article published in Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Hydatid cysts in muscles: clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and management of this atypical presentation
Published in
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, October 2015
DOI 10.1590/0037-8682-0197-2015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Recep Tekin, Alper Avci, Rojbin Ceylan Tekin, Mehmet Gem, Remzi Cevik

Abstract

Hydatid cysts are rarely detected in muscle tissue (0.7-0.9%), even in endemic countries. The aim of this study was to present information regarding the clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and management of muscle echinococcosis. Twenty-two patients with hydatid cysts in the muscle were followed from January 2006 through December 2014. Twenty-four sites of muscle involvement were observed in the 22 patients. Fifteen (68%) of our patients were women, while seven (32%) were men. The mean age was 28.1 ± 15.4 (6-61) years. The most frequent locations were the thigh (27.2%) and the paravertebral region (13.6%). Most patients reported a painless slow-growing mass with normal overlying skin. Most (90.2%) cases were treated by surgical excision and fine-needle aspiration. Primary muscle hydatid cyst should be considered in the differential diagnosis in cystic masses of the muscular system without pain and localized enlargement of soft tissue, especially in endemic areas. Hydatid cyst should be investigated using serological tests and imaging modalities. If possible, total surgical excision of hydatid cyst in the muscle should be performed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 17%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 52%
Unspecified 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 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 14 April 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
#953
of 1,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,757
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 1,193 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. 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 286,876 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 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.