↓ Skip to main content

A case report of septic shock syndrome caused by S. pneumoniae in an immunocompromised patient despite of vaccination

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
A case report of septic shock syndrome caused by S. pneumoniae in an immunocompromised patient despite of vaccination
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2481-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Josef Singer, Christoph Testori, Peter Schellongowski, Ammon Handisurya, Catharina Müller, Eva-Maria Reitter, Wolfgang Graninger, Paul Knöbl, Thomas Staudinger, Stefan Winkler, Florian Thalhammer

Abstract

We report a case of septic shock syndrome caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae in a patient who had undergone splenectomy due to an autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome (ALPS), which is characterized as a dysfunction of immunoregulation. Although the patient was vaccinated with a conjugated polysaccharide vaccine after the splenectomy, he was still susceptible to S. pneumoniae infection, because the isolated serovar (24F), a serovar long thought to be apathogenic, is not covered by any vaccine currently approved, neither a conjugated nor an unconjugated polysaccharide one. This case demonstrates that, due to presence of different serovars, also infections with bacteria against which patients are vaccinated have to be considered as differential diagnosis. Although vaccine development has extended the coverage of S. pneumoniae from 7 to 23 serovars within recent years, there is still demand for novel vaccines which can provide broader protection also against so-thought "apathogenic" strains, especially for groups at high risk.

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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 31%
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 27 November 2018.
All research outputs
#18,556,449
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,647
of 7,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,950
of 316,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#129
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 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 7,716 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. 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 316,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.