↓ Skip to main content

Cerebellar ataxia due to Leptospirosis- a case report

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Cerebellar ataxia due to Leptospirosis- a case report
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-2081-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rajveer Singh, Dheeraj Khurana, Sahil Mehta, Aditya Choudhary, Gayathri Petluri, Vivek Lal

Abstract

Leptospirosis involves nervous system in around 10-15% of the cases, the commonest presentation being aseptic meningitis. Most of the clinical features of neuroleptospirosis are due to capillary endothelial damage and vasculitis. Ataxia is an extremely uncommon manifestation of Leptospirosis occuring in <5% of cases. A 28 year old female from North India presented with a short febrile illness followed by an acute onset cerebellar ataxia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and transaminitis. Leptospira serology showed high titres of IgM (ELISA) and MAT (microscopic agglutination test titre >1:800) . She was treated with intravenous ceftriaxone for 14 days following which she showed marked recovery. The clinical features of neuroleptospirosis are varied, most of them resulting from endothelial damage and vasculitis. Immune mediated phenomenon with no structural damage is another possible mechanism leading to cerebellar ataxia. Cerebellar ataxia due to common tropical infections should be ruled out in the appropriate setting, as early institution of treatment can abate neurological morbidity. The case report highlights the importance of identifying a reversible cause of cerebellar ataixa due to a tropical infection, possibly due to a immune mediated phenomenon, and would be of interest to both internists and neurologists.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Librarian 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 29%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 20 41%
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 18 December 2016.
All research outputs
#18,490,948
of 22,912,409 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,621
of 7,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,997
of 418,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#141
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,912,409 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,693 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 418,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.