↓ Skip to main content

Simultaneous giant mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix and intestinal schistosomiasis: 'case report and brief review'

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 1,057)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
Simultaneous giant mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix and intestinal schistosomiasis: 'case report and brief review'
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1477-7819-12-385
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lin C, Li X, Guo Y, Hu G, Zhang Y, Yang K, Gan Y, Zhou J, Lv L, Gao K, Du J

Abstract

Both mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix and intestinal schistosomiasis are rare lesions. We report a rare case of simultaneous giant mucinous cystadenoma of the appendix and intestinal schistosomiasis. A 64-year-old man from China presented with a one-year history of pain in the right lower quadrant of the abdomen. There were no other pertinent historical findings, other than schistosomiasis. Imaging showed a large, tubular, mesenteric cystic structure extending downwards from the inferior wall of the cecum. Right hemicolectomy was performed for the appendiceal tumor. The final pathological diagnosis was mucinous cystadenoma with calcified Schistosome eggs within the mucosa and submucosa of the appendix, small intestine, colon, and lymph nodes. We deduced that the pathogenesis of appendiceal mucinous cystadenoma in our case was Schistosome eggs causing luminal obstruction, finally resulting in intraluminal accumulation of mucoid material. Postoperatively, the patient recovered well.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 20%
Unknown 4 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 1 20%
Student > Master 1 20%
Researcher 1 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 20%
Unspecified 1 20%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 12 January 2015.
All research outputs
#424,073
of 4,725,861 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#14
of 1,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,409
of 150,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#5
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,725,861 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,057 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 150,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.