↓ Skip to main content

Non-viral microbial keratitis in adults: clinical and laboratory aspects

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, August 2018
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
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
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.
Title
Non-viral microbial keratitis in adults: clinical and laboratory aspects
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, August 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.bjm.2018.05.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eunice Stella Jardim Cury, Marilene Rodrigues Chang, Elenir Rose Jardim Cury Pontes

Abstract

This study compares patients with and without non-viral microbial keratitis in relation to sociodemographic variables, clinical aspects, and involved causative agent. Clinical aspects, etiology and therapeutic procedures were assessed in patients with and without keratitis that were diagnosed in an Eye Care Center in Campo Grande, MS, Brazil. Patients were divided into two groups: (a) cases: 64 patients with non-viral microbial keratitis diagnosed at biomicroscopy; and (b) controls: 47 patients with other eye disorders that were not keratitis. Labor activity related to agriculture, cattle raising, and contact lens use were all linked to keratitis occurrence (p<0.005). In patients with keratitis, the most common symptoms were pain and photophobia, and the most frequently used medicines were fourth-generation fluoroquinolones (34.4%), amphotericin B (31.3%), and natamycin (28.1%). Microbial keratitis evolved to corneal perforation in 15.6% of cases; transplant was indicated in 10.9% of cases. Regarding the etiology of this condition, 23 (42.2%) keratitis cases were caused by bacteria (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 12.5%), 17 (39.1%) by fungi (Fusarium spp., 14.1% and Aspergillus spp., 4.7%), and 4 (6.3%) by Acanthamoeba. Patients with keratitis present with a poorer prognosis. Rapid identification of the etiologic agent is indispensable and depends on appropriate ophthalmological collection and microbiological techniques.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 18 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Unspecified 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 18 40%
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 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#19,954,338
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
#824
of 1,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,816
of 341,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,377 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 341,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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.