A novel case of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius aortitis
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Staphylococcus pseudintermedius is a common commensal and opportunistic canine pathogen with emerging pathogenicity in humans. We describe the first case of invasive S. pseudintermedius infection causing aortitis and mycotic aneurysm in an 83-year-old patient, treated successfully with flucloxacillin. This case highlights the potential for S. pseudintermedius to cause serious endovascular infection in humans.
Article activity feed
-
I am pleased to tell you that your article has now been accepted for publication in Access Microbiology. This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community.
-
-
Thank you for your patience while we assessed your manuscript “A novel case of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius aortitis”. Your work was reviewed by two members of the editorial board as well as two independent reviewers. With zoonotic potential of S. pseudintermedius becoming increasingly recognized, we believe that your work is a significant contribution to the existing literature. In light of the reviews, we are pleased to inform you that we are interested in your work. However, amendments are required before accept decision can be issued. We agree with the reviewer 2 that the manuscript would benefit from some major rearrangement of the sections to create context for readers and improve readability. As you have accurately highlighted the importance of your report from a One-Health perspective, a broader audience should be targeted …
Thank you for your patience while we assessed your manuscript “A novel case of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius aortitis”. Your work was reviewed by two members of the editorial board as well as two independent reviewers. With zoonotic potential of S. pseudintermedius becoming increasingly recognized, we believe that your work is a significant contribution to the existing literature. In light of the reviews, we are pleased to inform you that we are interested in your work. However, amendments are required before accept decision can be issued. We agree with the reviewer 2 that the manuscript would benefit from some major rearrangement of the sections to create context for readers and improve readability. As you have accurately highlighted the importance of your report from a One-Health perspective, a broader audience should be targeted (non-clinical background). Therefore, we recommend having a concise introduction section. We also recommend that the discussion include a paragraph to highlight the evidence prior to this study using advanced NCBI search in order to accurately describe existing reports and highlight the added value of your work.
-
Comments to Author
Case Report guidelines for Access Microbiology should be more thoroughly followed. While all the information is there, and well-stated, a small reorder may be more beneficial for readers. The 'Aortitis' and 'S. pseuointermedius' sub sections in the Discussion section would be more suited for an Introduction section before the case study itself. I was searching for finer details online as I read through the case study, only to discover the very details I was looking for were in the discussion section, after the Record. I appreciate the strict adherence to the patients wishes, as an explanation as to the choice of care and why it was most appropriate for her, even if not the first choice as a doctor. The only amendment I would like to see is a small discussion on the following: While the patient had …
Comments to Author
Case Report guidelines for Access Microbiology should be more thoroughly followed. While all the information is there, and well-stated, a small reorder may be more beneficial for readers. The 'Aortitis' and 'S. pseuointermedius' sub sections in the Discussion section would be more suited for an Introduction section before the case study itself. I was searching for finer details online as I read through the case study, only to discover the very details I was looking for were in the discussion section, after the Record. I appreciate the strict adherence to the patients wishes, as an explanation as to the choice of care and why it was most appropriate for her, even if not the first choice as a doctor. The only amendment I would like to see is a small discussion on the following: While the patient had no known history of exposure to a dog, there is mention of a pet bird. Was the bird checked and/or treated for S. pseudintermedius? If not, why? If the patient has contracted it from the bird once, is she not at risk again? As S. pseudintermedius is a common opportunistic pathogen isolated in many animal hosts, and with increasing contact between humans and animals, particularly in an aging society, this case study is relevant,. The authors highlight well enough why this pathogen should not be ignored and state the importance of differentiating between similar pathogens, especially with rising AMR in both veterinary and human health fields.
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
Although the title is attractive but the manuscript is poorly written. Besides, The authors ignored identification methods of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. phenotypic and genotypic confirmatory tests and Antimicrobial susceptibility test method were totally ignored.
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been …
Comments to Author
Although the title is attractive but the manuscript is poorly written. Besides, The authors ignored identification methods of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. phenotypic and genotypic confirmatory tests and Antimicrobial susceptibility test method were totally ignored.
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-