↓ Skip to main content

Focal non granulomatous orchitis in a patient with Crohn’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Focal non granulomatous orchitis in a patient with Crohn’s disease
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13000-015-0273-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas Piton, Marie-Laurence Roquet, Louis Sibert, Jean-Christophe Sabourin

Abstract

Crohn's disease is a systemic disease and sometimes involves the testicle, usually leading to granulomatous lesions. We report herein a case of focal non-granulomatous orchitis in a 21-year-old patient with active Crohn's disease treated by an anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody. This circumscribed testicular lesion mimicked a tumor, leading to orchiectomy. Pre-operative blood tests (i.e. alpha-fetoprotein, lactate dehydrogenase and human chorionic gonadotrophin) were strictly normal Pathological examination of the testicle revealed a focal inflammatory infiltrate predominantly composed of lymphocytes accompanied by few plasma cells, lacking giant cells or granulomas. Importantly, intratubular germ cell neoplasia, atrophy or lithiasis were not observed.After discussing and excluding other plausible causes (burnt-out /regressed germ cell tumor, infection, vascular or traumatic lesions, iatrogenic effects), we concluded that this particular case of orchitis was most likely an extra-digestive manifestation of inflammatory bowel disease. To our knowledge, this is the first described case of focal non-granulomatous orchitis associated with Crohn's disease. Virtual Slides: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/2117747284160112.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 27%
Other 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Researcher 1 9%
Unspecified 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 64%
Psychology 1 9%
Unspecified 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%

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 28 April 2015.
All research outputs
#2,656,536
of 5,032,449 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#288
of 602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,919
of 155,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#36
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,032,449 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 602 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 155,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.