↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Pseudomembranous colitis within radiotherapy field following concurrent chemoradiation therapy: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Pseudomembranous colitis within radiotherapy field following concurrent chemoradiation therapy: a case report
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, January 2013
DOI 10.2147/ott.s40145
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chen-hsi Hsieh, Bing-Jie Shen, Shih-Chiang Lin, Pei-Wei Shueng, Li-Ming Tseng, Chou

Abstract

Development of nonantibiotic-associated pseudomembranous colitis has been reported in patients receiving chemotherapy. Herein, we report a case of a 70-year-old man with diabetes mellitus and hypertension who received concurrent chemoradiation therapy after surgery for stage III pT3N1M0 rectal cancer. After completion of the therapy, the patient presented with a 2-week history of intermittent watery diarrhea (seven to nine times per day). However, the patient was afebrile and laboratory examination revealed no evidence of leukocytosis. Computed tomography disclosed inflammation of the sigmoid colon, infiltrative changes around the anastomotic site, and edematous changes straddling the serosal surface. Colonoscopic examination revealed multiple whitish patches within the radiation field, a finding suggestive of pseudomembranous colitis. No concomitant antibiotics were used during the period of concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Empirical oral metronidazole (500 mg every 8 hours) was administrated for 2 weeks. At the end of this treatment, stool culture was negative for Clostridium difficile. Physicians should be aware of the potential for the development of pseudomembranous colitis following concurrent chemoradiation therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Physics and Astronomy 1 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Unknown 6 43%

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 22 January 2013.
All research outputs
#17,676,164
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,324
of 2,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,109
of 280,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,926 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 280,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.