You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Atypical Bilateral Fuchs Uveitis: Diagnostic Challenges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Case Reports in Ophthalmology, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1159/000439081 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cristóbal Couto, Erika Hurtado, Dana Faingold, Carmen Demetrio, Ariel Schlaen, Marcelo Zas, Jorge Zarate, Silvia Rosetti, Andrea Paes de Lima, Juan Oscar Croxatto, Pablo Chiaradía, Miguel N. Burnier |
| Abstract |
Bilateral Fuchs uveitis associated with vitreous infiltration and posterior segment involvement requires a thorough diagnostic evaluation. The lack of well-defined diagnostic criteria makes identification of this entity difficult. The aim of this case report was to present the characteristics of a patient with atypical Fuchs uveitis and the procedures needed to rule out the differential diagnosis with specific attention to the utility of in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM). One case of chronic bilateral uveitis with severe vitreous opacities is presented. After extensive systemic workup, including vitrectomy, the case had no identifiable systemic etiology. IVCM of the cornea revealed the presence of dendritiform keratic precipitates. The diagnosis of Fuchs uveitis is based on clinical findings as no confirmatory laboratory tests are available. A high index of suspicion is key to an early diagnosis, especially in the cases with vitreous opacities and posterior segment manifestations. Auxiliary tests such as IVCM may aid the clinician in the diagnosis of Fuchs uveitis. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 13% |
| Professor | 1 | 13% |
| Researcher | 1 | 13% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 75% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
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 02 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,290,425
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Case Reports in Ophthalmology
#335
of 481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,394
of 267,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Case Reports in Ophthalmology
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 267,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.