↓ Skip to main content

Systemic nocardiosis in a dog caused by Nocardia cyriacigeorgica

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Systemic nocardiosis in a dog caused by Nocardia cyriacigeorgica
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12917-017-0945-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yesari Eroksuz, Nafia Canan Gursoy, Tolga Karapinar, Burak Karabulut, Canan Akdeniz Incili, Zeynep Yerlikaya, Zulal Asci Toraman, Mehmet Ozkan Timurkan, Hatice Eroksuz

Abstract

Systemic nocardiosis due to Nocardia cyriacigeorgica has not been reported in dogs. Light and electron microscopy, microbiological culture and molecular identification (PCR) were used to diagnose systemic nocardiosis caused by Nocardia cyriacigeorgica in a 3-month-old husky dog. The postmortem changes included multifocal to coalescing, sharply circumscribed pyogranulomatous inflammation and abscess formation in lungs, liver, myocardium, spleen, kidneys, brain, and hilar lymph nodes. The organism was isolated and sequencing of its 16S rRNA allowed its identification and speciation. Examination of the bacterial culture by scanning electron-microscope showed filamentous branching with fragmentation into widely bacillary and cocoid forms of the bacteria. There was no history of immunosupressive drug administration and infection by the immunosuppresive viral pathogens, canine distemper and parvovirus were excluded via PCR. N. cyriacigeorgica should be considered potential cause of systemic pyogranulomatous lesions in dogs. It is the first reported case of systemic nocardiosis due to N. cyriacigeorgica in a dog.

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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 26%
Librarian 3 16%
Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Social Sciences 3 16%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 11%
Unknown 9 47%

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 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,562,923
of 9,043,909 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#778
of 1,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,643
of 310,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#29
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,043,909 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,405 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 310,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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.