| Title |
Ecthyma gangrenosum and ecthyma-like lesions: review article
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-014-2277-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Vaiman, T. Lazarovitch, L. Heller, G. Lotan |
| Abstract |
The generally accepted definition of ecthyma gangrenosum (EG) states that this condition is pathognomonic of Pseudomonas septicemia (Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and that it should usually be seen in immunocompromised patients, particularly those with underlying malignant disease. The cases described in the literature present a somewhat different picture. Our objective was to analyze this controversy. The review analyzes 167 cases of EG that were described in the literature from 1975 to 2014. All articles on EG cases with EG-specific tissue defect that had signs of general and/or local infection and skin necrosis were included and analyzed, whatever the etiology detected. Necrotic lesions of the skin diagnosed as EG have various microbiological etiology, can occur in immunocompetent or even healthy persons, and are not necessarily connected with septicemia. In published cases, P. aeruginosa was detected in 123 cases (73.65 %); of them, there were only 72 cases (58.5 %) with sepsis. Other bacterial etiology was detected in 29 cases (17.35 %) and fungi were detected in 15 cases (9 %). While the clinical picture of the disease and the treatment strategy remain the same, there is no need to invent two separate definitions for Pseudomonas and non-Pseudomonas cases. We suggest accepting a broader definition of EG. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 29% |
| Unknown | 10 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 64% |
| Scientists | 3 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 28 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 58% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 1% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 28 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 September 2020.
All research outputs
#3,065,679
of 25,718,113 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#209
of 3,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,503
of 371,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#2
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,718,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,113 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 371,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.