Background Toothpicks are common foreign bodies which may injure surrounding organs leading to a series of atypical symptoms. We present a rare clinical case that septicemia caused by a toothpick penetrated into the right kidney. Case presentation We describe a 51-year-old patient who presented with right-sided backache and hematuresis for 2 days. Blood culture persistently grew Streptococcus gordonii. Ultrasound of the patient’s urinary tract revealed a strong striated echo in the middle of the right kidney. Complete abdominal computed tomography revealed a duodenal foreign body penetrating into the right kidney. The toothpick was removed under endoscopy and hemostasis was given. Antibiotic treatment was upgraded. The patient was recovered and discharged from his stay on the fifteenth day. Conclusions Early identification of the etiology of sepsis can effectively alleviate patient’s distress and reduce hospital stay. Clinicians should identify the source of sepsis through a medical history and examination.

Background and aim: Intraabdominal infection (IAI) is a common and important disease worldwide. An increasing number of related guidelines/consensuses have been published in recent years, the quality evaluation for these guidelines/consensuses is necessary to identify lower-quality documents and explore the quality distribution in different time range and areas in this field. Methods: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Instrument tool was adopted to assess the quality of IAI guidelines/consensuses by 3 researchers independently. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) among the researchers were retrieved to reflect reliability. The quality differences of these guidelines/consensuses issued before and after May 2009, both international and non-international, were compared by a Mann–Whitney U test. Results: Fourteen IAI guidelines/consensuses published in English were obtained following a literature search. The ICCs among the researchers were all above 0.75, indicating satisfactory reliability. This outcome showed that the overall quality of these guidelines/consensuses was mediocre and considered acceptable in all items. A few guidelines/consensuses were better in their scientific and methodological characteristics than the others. Moreover, there were no significant differences in the scores between the guidelines/consensuses issued before and after May 2009 or between international vs regional guidelines/consensuses. Conclusions: Overall, the quality of the IAI guidelines/consensuses was generally acceptable and applicable, with a few deficiencies. Therefore, continuous improvement is essential. The guideline assessment tools should be applied in guideline/consensus development both widely and strictly to improve the methodological quality.