↓ Skip to main content

Successful treatment of fungal endophthalmitis using intravitreal caspofungin

Overview of attention for article published in Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
17 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.
Article details
Title
Successful treatment of fungal endophthalmitis using intravitreal caspofungin
Published in
Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, January 2017
DOI 10.5935/0004-2749.20170048
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Fungal endophthalmitis is a rare condition often associated with poor prognosis. We present a case of postoperative acute fungal endophthalmitis caused by the yeast-like fungus Stephanoascus ciferrii (Candida ciferrii). The fungus was resistant to fluconazole, voriconazole, and amphotericin B but susceptible to caspofungin. Because the degree of vitreal penetration of caspofungin after its intravenous administration is unclear, we performed multiple intravitreal injections, first with 50 µg/0.1 ml and then with 250 µg/0.1 ml caspofungin. Despite the recurrence of symptoms, intravitreal injection of caspofungin finally abolished the inflammation and achieved ambulatory vision that persisted until 1 year of follow-up. To our knowledge, this is the first report of S. ciferrii endophthalmitis and its successful treatment with intravitreal caspofungin.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 24%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 47%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Unknown 8 47%
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 24 August 2017.
All research outputs
#21,472,601
of 30,529,933 outputs
Outputs from Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia
#201
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,126
of 435,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,529,933 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 435,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.