↓ Skip to main content

Suppurative granulomatous sinorhinitis associated with Nocardia spp. infection in a cat

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Suppurative granulomatous sinorhinitis associated with Nocardia spp. infection in a cat
Published in
Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, January 2015
DOI 10.1292/jvms.14-0319
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ataru NAKANISHI, Tadahisa MASHITA, Kyoko AKIYAMA, Wakana NAKANISHI, MORI Takashi, YANO Masaki, ASAI Tetsuo, KANO Rui, Syunsuke SHIMAMURA, Jun YASUDA

Abstract

A 9-year-old spayed female cat was examined for cheek skin drainage. The skin lesion did not respond to medical therapy; thereafter, facial deformity developed. A computed tomography revealed an intranasal mass and maxillary osteolysis. The mass was histopathologically diagnosed as suppurative granulomatous inflammation caused by filamentous bacteria. The lesion responded well to radiation therapy. Although actinomycosis was suspected histopathologically, no actinomycetes were detected in the nasal lesion by a bacterial culture conducted at a commercial laboratory. The submandibular lymph node and subcutaneous tissue exhibited swelling. Microbiological examination and genetic analysis based on 16S rDNA gene sequence revealed that Nocardia spp. were isolated from both lesions.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 23%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Other 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 46%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 23%
Environmental Science 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 January 2015.
All research outputs
#14,771,207
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Veterinary Medical Science
#906
of 3,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,683
of 360,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Veterinary Medical Science
#1
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,546 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 360,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.