| Title |
A case report of Epstein–Barr virus-associated retinal vasculitis: successful treatment using only acyclovir therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Medical Case Reports Journal, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/imcrj.s107089 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Narumon Keorochana |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to describe a presumed case of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-associated retinal vasculitis in a 42-year-old female with sudden unilateral vision loss and successful treatment with acyclovir therapy. Diagnostic vitreous biopsy of the right eye was performed to test for EBV and other known infectious causes of retinitis and evaluate vitreous cells and serological testing. Vitreous polymerase chain reaction viral DNA testing result was positive for EBV but negative for herpes simplex virus, varicella-zoster virus, and cytomegalovirus. Serologic testing was negative for toxoplasma gondii, syphilis, tuberculosis, and HIV. Histopathologic analysis of vitreous cells revealed atypical lymphocytes. Fluorescein angiography showed disk leakage, occluded retinal artery, peripheral vascular leakage, and ischemic area of the right eye. Intravenous acyclovir, 10 mg/kg/d, was prescribed for 14 days followed by oral acyclovir for 3 months. All lesions have become quiet. EBV may be a cause of retinal disease, and intravenous acyclovir is a successful treatment choice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 46% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,911,267
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from International Medical Case Reports Journal
#124
of 430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,678
of 367,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Medical Case Reports Journal
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 367,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 60% of its contemporaries.