| Title |
Isolated subcutaneous nontuberculous mycobacterial infection: a rare case initially mischaracterized as a soft tissue malignancy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Skeletal Radiology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00256-017-2851-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hee Young Choi, Min Hee Lee, Jong-Seok Lee, In Hye Song, Kyung-Ja Cho |
| Abstract |
The occurrence of nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) infection is rare, and the involvement of the musculoskeletal system is even less common. However, the incidence of soft tissue and skin NTM infection is increasing, particularly in patients who undergo injections and minor surgical procedures. Given the non-specific clinical manifestations of NTM infection, the lack of knowledge among physicians regarding this rare infection could lead to inaccurate and delayed diagnosis. Herein, we present a case of an isolated subcutaneous NTM infection caused by Mycobacterium abscessus in the upper back of an immunocompetent 68-year-old woman. The clinical presentation, magnetic resonance imaging findings (including diffusion-weighted imaging), and pathologic findings of subcutaneous NTM infection are described and compared with those of tuberculosis and tumor presentations to provide a more accurate clinical picture for a differential diagnosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| India | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
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 08 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,087,536
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Skeletal Radiology
#808
of 1,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,395
of 440,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Skeletal Radiology
#24
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 440,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 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 62% of its contemporaries.