↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Microbiology of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction: simple epiphora, acute dacryocystitis, and chronic dacryocystitis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Microbiology of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction: simple epiphora, acute dacryocystitis, and chronic dacryocystitis
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, February 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s100280
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kanograt Pornpanich, Panitee Luemsamran, Amornrut Leelaporn, Jiraporn Santisuk, Nattaporn Tesavibul, Buntitar Lertsuwanroj, Sumalee Vangveeravong

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the microbiology of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO) and its antimicrobial susceptibilities. Ninety-three patients (100 eyes) diagnosed with PANDO, categorized as acute, chronic dacryocystitis, or simple epiphora, were prospectively enrolled. Lacrimal sac contents were cultured for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria and fungi. Cultured organisms were identified, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed for aerobic bacteria. Seventy-nine of the 100 samples were culture positive. One hundred twenty-seven organisms were isolated, and 29 different species were identified. Most microorganisms were Gram-positive bacteria (45 samples or 57.0% of all positive culture samples), whereas Gram-negative bacteria, anaerobic bacteria, and fungi were found in 39 (49.4%), 24 (30.4%), and four samples (5.1%), respectively. The most frequently isolated group was coagulase-negative staphylococci (27.8%), followed by nonspore-forming Gram-positive rods (anaerobe) (17.7%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (15.2%). Of the 100 samples, five, 45, and 50 samples were obtained from patients with acute dacryocystitis, chronic dacryocystitis, and simple epiphora, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that Gram-negative organisms were isolated more frequently from the chronic dacryocystitis subgroup than from the simple epiphora subgroup (P=0.012). Antimicrobial susceptibility testing demonstrated that ciprofloxacin was the most effective drug against all Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms. Patients with PANDO, with or without clinical signs of lacrimal infection, were culture positive. Gram-negative organisms were frequently isolated, which were different from previous studies. Ciprofloxacin was the most effective agent against all Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 65%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,170,530
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,157
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,196
of 406,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#29
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 406,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.