↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Enema reduction of intussusception: the success rate of hydrostatic and pneumatic reduction

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Enema reduction of intussusception: the success rate of hydrostatic and pneumatic reduction
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, December 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s92169
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiraporn Khorana, Jesda Singhavejsakul, Nuthapong Ukarapol, Mongkol Laohapensang, Junsujee Wakhanrittee, Jayanton Patumanond

Abstract

Intussusception is a common surgical emergency in infants and children. The incidence of intussusception is from one to four per 2,000 infants and children. If there is no peritonitis, perforation sign on abdominal radiographic studies, and nonresponsive shock, nonoperative reduction by pneumatic or hydrostatic enema can be performed. The purpose of this study was to compare the success rates of both the methods. Two institutional retrospective cohort studies were performed. All intussusception patients (ICD-10 code K56.1) who had visited Chiang Mai University Hospital and Siriraj Hospital from January 2006 to December 2012 were included in the study. The data were obtained by chart reviews and electronic databases, which included demographic data, symptoms, signs, and investigations. The patients were grouped according to the method of reduction followed into pneumatic reduction and hydrostatic reduction groups with the outcome being the success of the reduction technique. One hundred and seventy episodes of intussusception occurring in the patients of Chiang Mai University Hospital and Siriraj Hospital were included in this study. The success rate of pneumatic reduction was 61% and that of hydrostatic reduction was 44% (P=0.036). Multivariable analysis and adjusting of the factors by propensity scores were performed; the success rate of pneumatic reduction was 1.48 times more than that of hydrostatic reduction (P=0.036, 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.03-2.13). Both pneumatic and hydrostatic reduction can be performed safely according to the experience of the radiologist or pediatric surgeon and hospital setting. This study showed that pneumatic reduction had a higher success rate than hydrostatic reduction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Other 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Philosophy 1 4%
Unknown 7 29%

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 06 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,766,520
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#406
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,212
of 344,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#16
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 344,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 67% of its contemporaries.