↓ Skip to main content

Shewanella infection of snake bites: a twelve-year retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Shewanella infection of snake bites: a twelve-year retrospective study
Published in
Clinics, May 2012
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2012(05)05
Pubmed ID
Authors

Po-Yu Liu, Zhi-Yuan Shi, Chin-Fu Lin, Jin-An Huang, Jai-Wen Liu, Kun-Wei Chan, Kwong-Chung Tung

Abstract

Infections of snake bite wounds by Shewanella are rarely discussed in the medical literature. This study aims to characterize the presentation and management of Shewanella infections in snake bite wounds. We retrospectively investigated the microbiology, clinical features, and outcomes of patients with Shewanella infected snake bite wounds admitted to a tertiary medical center from January 1998 to December 2009. Ten patients with Shewanella-infected snake bite wounds were identified. All of the snake bites were caused by cobras. The majority of patients had moderate to severe local envenomation and polymicrobial infections. Shewanella isolates are susceptible to ampicillin-sulbactam, piperacillin-tazobactam, third-and fourth-generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, aminoglycosides, and quinolones but are resistant to penicillin and cefazolin. All of the patients examined had favorable outcomes. It is recommended that Shewanella infection be considered in snake bite patients, especially when patients present with moderate to severe local envenomation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 11 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 July 2020.
All research outputs
#12,246,824
of 21,138,533 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#315
of 663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,402
of 288,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,138,533 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 663 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 288,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.