↓ Skip to main content

Acute focal bacterial nephritis, pyonephrosis and renal abscess in children

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Nephrology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Acute focal bacterial nephritis, pyonephrosis and renal abscess in children
Published in
Pediatric Nephrology, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00467-015-3141-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Bitsori, Maria Raissaki, Sofia Maraki, Emmanouil Galanakis

Abstract

Acute focal bacterial nephritis (AFBN), renal abscess and pyonephrosis are uncommon and not fully addressed forms of urinary tract infection (UTI) which may be underdiagnosed without the appropriate imaging studies. Here, we review the characteristics and outcome of these renal entities in children managed at a single medial centre. The medical files of all children hospitalized for episodes of AFBN, renal abscess and pyonephrosis during a 10-year period (2003-2012) were reviewed. Among the 602 children hospitalized for UTI, 21 presented with AFBN, one with abscess and three with pyonephrosis. All 25 children (13 girls), ranging in age from 0.06 to13.4 years, were admitted with fever and an impaired clinical condition, and 18 had urological abnormalities. More than one lesion, often of different types, were identified in 11 episodes. Urine cultures from 13 episodes grew non-Escherichia coli pathogens and those from two episodes were negative. Antibiotics were administered for 14-60 days, and emergency surgery was required in three cases. During follow-up, 13 patients underwent corrective surgery. Permanent renal lesions were identified in 16 patients. AFBN, renal abscess and pyonephrosis should be suspected in children with severe presentation and urological history. Appropriate imaging is crucial for management planning. Prognosis is often guarded despite appropriate treatment. Based on the results of this study we propose a management algorithm.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Postgraduate 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Other 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 62%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 11 20%
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 16 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,763,547
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Nephrology
#2,936
of 3,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,840
of 239,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Nephrology
#31
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,539 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 239,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.