↓ Skip to main content

Laryngeal tuberculosis diagnosed by stool sample cultures: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Laryngeal tuberculosis diagnosed by stool sample cultures: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13256-015-0548-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas Yin, Marion Delord, Antoine Giovanni, Jean del Grande, Michel Drancourt, Philippe Brouqui, Jean-Christophe Lagier

Abstract

Laryngeal tuberculosis is a rare and often misdiagnosed disease. Its diagnosis is based on the association of a laryngeal lesion and the microbiological detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Stool cultures have recently been described as a useful tool in the diagnosis of atypical forms of tuberculosis. In this report, we describe the first case in the literature of laryngeal tuberculosis diagnosed by culture of stool samples. A 41-year-old French Caucasian man was admitted to our hospital for dysphonia of 3 months' evolution. A laryngeal biopsy was performed because of suspicion of carcinoma. He had no clinical signs of tuberculosis. The biopsy showed a caseating granuloma suggestive of laryngeal tuberculosis. The diagnosis was finally confirmed by stool cultures, whereas sputum cultures remained sterile for M. tuberculosis. This case confirms the importance of stool cultures in the diagnosis of tuberculosis, especially for patients with uncommon presentations.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Researcher 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 33%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 6 33%

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 31 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,298,172
of 4,941,811 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#609
of 1,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,589
of 146,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#13
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,941,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,024 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 146,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.