↓ Skip to main content

Isolation of Mycobacterium arupense from pleural effusion: culprit or not?

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 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
Isolation of Mycobacterium arupense from pleural effusion: culprit or not?
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12879-018-3136-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xian Zhou, Qiaoling Ruan, Weimin Jiang, Xinyu Wang, Yuan Jiang, Shenglei Yu, Yu Xu, Jing Li, Yangyi Zhang, Wenhong Zhang, Yuekai Hu

Abstract

Mycobacterium arupense, first identified in 2006, is a slow-growing nontuberculous mycobacterium (NTM) and an emerging cause of tenosynovitis, potentially associated with immunosuppression. However, unlike the diagnostic value of its isolation from osteoarticular specimens, the significance of detecting M. arupense in respiratory specimens is not yet clear. To our knowledge, we, for the first time, described the identification of M. arupense from the pleural effusion of an immunocompetent patient, who presented with fever and chylothorax. The symptoms resolved with doxycycline treatment for 45 days and a low-fat, high-protein diet. Follow-up at 14 months showed no relapse. Because the patient fully recovered without combined anti-NTM treatment, we did not consider M. arupense the etiological cause in this case. This indicates that M. arupense detected in pleural effusion is not necessarily a causative agent and careful interpretation is needed in terms of its clinical relevance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Other 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 8 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 8 44%
Attention Score in Context

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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,619,411
of 23,065,445 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,662
of 7,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,055
of 326,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#96
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,065,445 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 326,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.