↓ Skip to main content

Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus hominis endophthalmitis following cataract surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus hominis endophthalmitis following cataract surgery
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2013
DOI 10.2147/opth.s46792
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moosang Kim, Jun Yeon Won

Abstract

We report a case of acute postoperative endophthalmitis caused by vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus hominis, treated at our hospital. An 80-year-old male presented 2 days after uncomplicated phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation, with a 24-hour history of progressive visual loss and redness in the operated (right) eye. On examination, best corrected visual acuity was counting fingers. Anterior segment examination revealed conjunctival injection, chemosis, corneal edema, and hypopyon. B-scan ultrasonography showed vitreous opacification, but no retinal detachment. Acute postoperative endophthalmitis was diagnosed. We performed vitrectomy with vancomycin in the irrigating solution, intraocular lens removal, and silicone oil tamponade. Culture of the vitreous grew Staphylococcus hominis. Antibiotic susceptibility testing showed the isolate was sensitive to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and teicoplanin but resistant to ciprofloxacin, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, cefazolin, and vancomycin. At 3 months, the visual acuity of the silicone oil-treated eye was 20/400.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Other 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%

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 14 July 2013.
All research outputs
#12,850,437
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#883
of 3,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,787
of 194,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#19
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,143 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 194,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.