↓ Skip to main content

First case report of endocarditis caused by haematobacter massiliensis in China

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
First case report of endocarditis caused by haematobacter massiliensis in China
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2809-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jing-wei Cheng, Peng Wang, Meng Xiao, Ying Yuan, Timothy Kudinha, Ying Zhao, Fanrong Kong, Ying-chun Xu

Abstract

Haematobacter massiliensis, a rare species of fastidious Gram-negative, non-motile, non-sporing, non-fermentative, pleomorphic, aerobic bacilli, has rarely been documented as the cause of infectious endocarditis in literature. Here we report the first case of infectious endocarditis (IE) caused by H. massiliensis in China. A 44-year-old woman presented to the infectious department of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (Beijing) in August 2013, with a 7-week history of fevers, chills, sore throat, muscular soreness, occasional joint pain, and cough. The organism obtained by blood culture, identified as H. massiliensis by 16S rRNA gene sequencing, was finally implicated as the cause of infectious endocarditis. The patient was cured with amoxicillin/clavulanate combined with amikacin for 6 weeks. This is the first case report in China, of the isolation of H. massiliensis from the bloodstream of a patient with endocarditis. The microbiology and clinical study of the organism will help us understand it better in future clinical practice.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 33%
Neuroscience 2 10%
Unspecified 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 July 2022.
All research outputs
#7,017,325
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,267
of 7,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,633
of 328,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#47
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 328,800 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 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 64% of its contemporaries.