Disseminated tuberculosis with rare coccygeal involvement: a case report
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
Introduction : Tuberculosis (TB) is a preventable and usually curable disease but remains a major health problem worldwide, particularly in developing countries. TB of the lumbosacral junction is rare and occurs in only 1% to 2% of all cases of spinal TB. Moreover, isolated sacrococcygeal TB is extremely rare. Case report : We present a case of a 64-year-old patient with a history of diabetes who presented with chronic back pain and cough. Physical examinations revealed a peri-anal fistula and left elbow joint arthritis. the patient is diagnosed with disseminated tuberculosis with coccygeal involvement. Diagnosis was achieved non-invasively using Xpert MTB/RIF confirming Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. The patient experienced complete resolution of symptoms following the commencement of anti-tuberculosis therapy. Conclusion : We highlight the importance of this case due to the rare coccygeal localization of tuberculosis in an immunocompetent patient, diagnosed through non-invasive means.
Article activity feed
-
-
Dear Dr. Baziaa, Your manuscript "Disseminated tuberculosis with rare coccygeal involvement: a case report" has been assessed by two independent reviewers, and although the report is considered of interest, a major revision of the manuscript is necessary. Most importantly, diagnostic images that confirm the cure of the patient should be included in the manuscript for comparison. Additionally, I strongly suggest that you go through the manuscript and correct some English issues. Please address the reviewers' comments and resubmit your work for further consideration. Best regards, Gustavo
-
Comments to Author
The case report is unique and interesting. The language needs correction. The authors are requested to share the respective post-treatment images for comparison and confirmation of the adequacy of the treatment.
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Poor
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 …
Comments to Author
The case report is unique and interesting. The language needs correction. The authors are requested to share the respective post-treatment images for comparison and confirmation of the adequacy of the treatment.
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Poor
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
-
Comments to Author
Please ONLY put comments for the Author(s) in here 1. Introduction - The first two sentences do not introduce the subject accurately so they can be deleted (Lines 42 and 43). 2. In line 45, before describing extrapulmonary TB, introduce the categorisation of TB presentation as - pulmonary and extrapulmonary. 3. Line 81 - The 'M' should be capitalised and 'Mycobacterium tuberculosis' should be italicised. 4. Line 82 - Specify what the GeneXpert was positive for. 5. Lines 129 - 134. It is not correct to compare PCR and biopsy. PCR is a laboratory test which can be applied on clinical specimens including biopsy specimens. Reword correctly. 6. The discussion does not explain why, in contrast to previous studies with predominance of female gender and non-discharging presentations, our case was a male …
Comments to Author
Please ONLY put comments for the Author(s) in here 1. Introduction - The first two sentences do not introduce the subject accurately so they can be deleted (Lines 42 and 43). 2. In line 45, before describing extrapulmonary TB, introduce the categorisation of TB presentation as - pulmonary and extrapulmonary. 3. Line 81 - The 'M' should be capitalised and 'Mycobacterium tuberculosis' should be italicised. 4. Line 82 - Specify what the GeneXpert was positive for. 5. Lines 129 - 134. It is not correct to compare PCR and biopsy. PCR is a laboratory test which can be applied on clinical specimens including biopsy specimens. Reword correctly. 6. The discussion does not explain why, in contrast to previous studies with predominance of female gender and non-discharging presentations, our case was a male patient with a discharging sinus. Can the author suggest possible explanations?
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very 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
-