↓ Skip to main content

Brucellosis caused by the wood rat pathogen Brucella neotomae: two case reports

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, December 2017
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 (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Brucellosis caused by the wood rat pathogen Brucella neotomae: two case reports
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13256-017-1496-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan M. Villalobos-Vindas, Ernesto Amuy, Elías Barquero-Calvo, Norman Rojas, Carlos Chacón-Díaz, Esteban Chaves-Olarte, Caterina Guzman-Verri, Edgardo Moreno

Abstract

Brucellosis is a chronic bacterial disease caused by members of the genus Brucella. Among the classical species stands Brucella neotomae, until now, a pathogen limited to wood rats. However, we have identified two brucellosis human cases caused by B. neotomae, demonstrating that this species has zoonotic potential. Within almost 4 years of each other, a 64-year-old Costa Rican white Hispanic man and a 51-year-old Costa Rican white Hispanic man required medical care at public hospitals of Costa Rica. Their hematological and biochemical parameters were within normal limits. No adenopathies or visceral abnormalities were found. Both patients showed intermittent fever, disorientation, and general malaise and a positive Rose Bengal test compatible with Brucella infection. Blood and cerebrospinal fluid cultures rendered Gram-negative coccobacilli identified by genomic analysis as B. neotomae. After antibiotic treatment, the patients recovered with normal mental activities. This is the first report describing in detail the clinical disease caused by B. neotomae in two unrelated patients. In spite of previous claims, this bacterium keeps zoonotic potential. Proposals to generate vaccines by using B. neotomae as an immunogen must be reexamined and countries housing the natural reservoir must consider the zoonotic risk.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 30%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 30%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 3 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,275,806
of 12,606,240 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#534
of 2,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,820
of 383,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#52
of 301 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,606,240 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,077 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. 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 383,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 301 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.