↓ Skip to main content

Helcococcus ovis in a patient with an artificial eye: a case report and literature review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
Helcococcus ovis in a patient with an artificial eye: a case report and literature review
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12879-018-3310-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liyan Mao, Zhongju Chen, Yanfang Lu, Jing Yu, Yu Zhou, Qun Lin, Ying Luo, Ziyong Sun

Abstract

Helcococcus ovis, belonging to the genus of Helcococcu in Peptostreptococcaceae, is one kind of facultative anaerobic and gram-positive cocci, which was first isolated from a mixed infection in sheep in 1999. To our knowledge, it's known as an invasive pathogen in animals, and never been reported as a human pathogen in published literature. The aims of this work are to describe the first report of H. ovis which was recovered from the artificial eye of human case and perform a literature review. A 26 year-old man reporting pyogenic infection with an artificial eye attended ophthalmic ward in Tongji hospital. After physical examination, clinical and laboratory investigations, the diagnosis of eye infection caused by Helcococcus ovis and Staphylococcus aureus was established. Receiving a medico-surgical approach, the patient was successfully treated. The treatment consisted in intravenous cefotaxime and ornidazole, levofloxacin eye drops during two weeks and removing of right artificial eye with debridement. We describe here the first known case of H. ovis which was recovered from human artificial eye. This report different from previous data found in the literature emphasizes the invasive potential of this bacterial species as a pathogen in human. Prospectively, the application of next generation sequencing tools would contribute to a more accurate classification of clinical strains.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 60%
Student > Bachelor 1 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 60%
Environmental Science 1 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 20%

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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#11,883,839
of 13,401,642 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,259
of 4,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,264
of 268,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,401,642 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,993 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 268,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them