↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Neuroretinitis with dual infections

Overview of attention for article published in International Medical Case Reports Journal, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Neuroretinitis with dual infections
Published in
International Medical Case Reports Journal, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/imcrj.s91323
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kwong-Han Kiu, Hashim Hanizasurana, Embong Zunaina

Abstract

A 22-year-old Malay female presented with left eye floaters for 2 weeks, associated with temporal visual field defect and metamorphopsia for 3 days. She has a guinea pig and a hedgehog at home, but denied being bitten or scratched by them. Her visual acuity at presentation was 6/12 on the left eye and 6/6 on the right eye. Her left eye relative afferent pupillary defect was barely positive with mild anterior chamber reaction. Fundus examination of the left eye showed mild vitritis, swollen optic disc with macular star, crops of active choroidal lesions at superonasal retina with a linear arrangement in the form of migratory track nasally. However, there were no nematodes seen on fundus examination. Investigations showed normal full blood count with no eosinophilia and positive serology test for Bartonella henselae. She was diagnosed to have dual infection - diffuse unilateral subacute neuroretinitis (DUSN), based on the presence of crops of choroidal lesions with migratory track, and cat scratch disease (CSD) based on a positive serological test. She was treated with oral albendazole 400 mg 12 hourly for 6 weeks for DUSN and oral doxycycline 100 mg 12 hourly for 4 weeks for CSD. Focal laser had been applied to the area of migratory track in the left eye. Her left eye vision improved to 6/6 at 1 month after treatment, with resolution of neuroretinitis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Master 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 9 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 45%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Unknown 10 45%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Medical Case Reports Journal
#277
of 427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,058
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Medical Case Reports Journal
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 427 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 286,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.