↓ Skip to main content

Foreign bodies in the sigmoid colon of a psychiatric patient following self-mutilation: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, September 2016
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 (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
4 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
Foreign bodies in the sigmoid colon of a psychiatric patient following self-mutilation: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13256-016-1044-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hailu Wondimu Gebresellassie

Abstract

The act of deliberate injury to one's own body without the help of others is a well-known phenomenon in psychiatric patients. Insertion of foreign bodies into one or more orifices is not uncommon but insertion into a body cavity or the gastrointestinal tract by self-inflicted injury is quite rare. A 32-year-old Ethiopian psychiatric patient presented with left lower abdominal pain of three months' duration following the insertion of foreign bodies via a self-inflicted wound in the left lower quadrant of his abdomen. Radiological evaluation demonstrated the presence of foreign bodies. A laparotomy revealed two metallic and three wooden materials in his sigmoid colon and a hole in his sigmoid that was tightly sealed with omentum. The foreign bodies were successfully removed, the hole was closed primarily, and our patient was discharged uneventfully. This case illustrates that a foreign body can be inserted into the colon through a self-inflicted wound in psychiatric patients, and patients may present months later without having developed generalized peritonitis.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 25%
Researcher 1 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 25%
Unspecified 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 25%
Neuroscience 1 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 25%

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 07 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,486,406
of 11,329,665 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#454
of 1,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,916
of 259,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#17
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,329,665 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,684 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 259,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.