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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of anterior chamber tap in cases of bacterial endophthalmitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Eye and Vision, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40662-017-0083-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carl Sjoholm-Gomez de Liano, Vidal F. Soberon-Ventura, Guillermo Salcedo-Villanueva, Abril Santos-Palacios, Jose Luis Guerrero-Naranjo, Jans Fromow-Guerra, Gerardo García-Aguirre, Virgilio Morales-Canton, Raul Velez-Montoya |
| Abstract |
To assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of anterior chamber tap for the diagnosis of bacterial endophthalmitis on a population with high prevalence. Retrospective, single centre, case series study. We reviewed all medical records with clinical diagnosis of bacterial endophthalmitis in our hospital from January 1st, 2000 to December 31st 2014. From each record, we documented general demographic data, best corrected visual acuity and vitreous and aqueous tap microbiological results. All cases were further divided according to the endophthalmitis aetiology to perform individual calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy and prevalence. We used the results of the vitreous tap as the gold standard for diagnosis of bacterial endophthalmitis. We excluded those records in which the aqueous and vitreous samples were not taken simultaneously or had an incomplete microbiological report. Significance were assessed with chi squared statistics, with an alpha value of 0.05 for statistical significance. A total of 190 cases fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Positive culture rate from vitreous samples was 64.74%. Positive culture rate from aqueous sample was 32.11%. Bacteria isolated from aqueous samples matched those isolated from vitreous samples 78.68% of the time. The overall sensitivity was 38.21%, specificity: 75.51%, positive predictive value: 79.66%, negative predictive value: 32.74% (p = 0.08). Subgroup analysis showed that anterior chamber taps in cases of post-surgical endophthalmitis had a moderate to low sensitivity (37.73%), high specificity (93%) and high positive predictive value (95%) (p < 0.04). The sensitivity and specificity of anterior chamber tap are low and should not be used for critical therapeutic decisions in patients with suspected bacterial endophthalmitis. In cases of post-surgical endophthalmitis, the result of an anterior chamber tap could be used for therapeutic guidance, but only in conjunction with clinical presentation and in the absence of a better method for diagnosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 19% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 57% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,434,884
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Eye and Vision
#120
of 241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,460
of 312,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Eye and Vision
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 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 241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 312,555 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 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.