↓ Skip to main content

Streptococcus uberis and Staphylococcus aureus forefoot and blood stream co-infection in a haemodialysis patient: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nephrology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Streptococcus uberis and Staphylococcus aureus forefoot and blood stream co-infection in a haemodialysis patient: a case report
Published in
BMC Nephrology, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12882-015-0069-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Valentiny, Harald Dirschmid, Karl Lhotta

Abstract

Streptococcus uberis, the most frequent cause of mastitis in lactating cows, is considered non-pathogenic for humans. Only a few case reports have described human infections with this microorganism, which is notoriously difficult to identify. We report the case of a 75-year-old male haemodialysis patient, who developed a severe foot infection with osteomyelitis and bacteraemia. Both Streptococcus uberis and Staphylococcus aureus were identified in wound secretion and blood samples using mass spectrometry. The presence of Streptococcus uberis was confirmed by superoxide dismutase A sequencing. The patient recovered after amputation of the forefoot and antibiotic treatment with ampicillin/sulbactam. He had probably acquired the infection while walking barefoot on cattle pasture land. This is the first case report of a human infection with Streptococcus uberis with identification of the microorganism using modern molecular technology. We propose that Staphylococcus aureus co-infection was a prerequisite for deep wound and bloodstream infection with Streptococcus uberis.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 6%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 8 17%
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 09 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,353,264
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#1,447
of 2,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,551
of 266,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#26
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,471 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 266,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.