↓ Skip to main content

Rational diagnostic strategies for Lyme borreliosis in children and adolescents: recommendations by the Committee for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinations of the German Academy for Pediatrics and…

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Pediatrics, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Rational diagnostic strategies for Lyme borreliosis in children and adolescents: recommendations by the Committee for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinations of the German Academy for Pediatrics and Adolescent Health
Published in
European Journal of Pediatrics, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00431-012-1779-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. I. Huppertz, P. Bartmann, U. Heininger, V. Fingerle, M. Kinet, R. Klein, G. C. Korenke, H. J. Nentwich

Abstract

The varying clinical manifestations of Lyme borreliosis, transmitted by Ixodes ricinus and caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, frequently pose diagnostic problems. Diagnostic strategies vary between early and late disease manifestations and usually include serological methods. Erythema migrans is pathognomonic and does not require any further laboratory investigations. In contrast, the diagnosis of neuroborreliosis requires the assessment of serum and cerebrospinal fluid. Lyme arthritis is diagnosed in the presence of newly recognized arthritis and high-titer serum IgG antibodies against B. burgdorferi. The committee concludes the following recommendations: Borrelial serology should only be ordered in case of well-founded clinical suspicion for Lyme borreliosis, i.e., manifestations compatible with the diagnosis. Tests for borrelial genomic sequences in ticks or lymphocyte proliferation assays should not be ordered. When results of such tests or of serological investigations that were not indicated are available, they should not influence therapeutic decisions. Laboratories should be cautious when interpreting results of serological tests and abstain from giving therapeutic recommendations and from proposing retesting after some time without intimate knowledge of patient's history and disease manifestations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 57 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 26%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Professor 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 16 26%
Unknown 4 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 7 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 16 March 2021.
All research outputs
#3,213,775
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#545
of 3,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,990
of 164,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 164,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 95% of its contemporaries.