| Title |
Group A Streptococcus, Acute Rheumatic Fever and Rheumatic Heart Disease: Epidemiology and Clinical Considerations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11936-017-0513-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Liesl J. Zühlke, Andrea Beaton, Mark E. Engel, Christopher T. Hugo-Hamman, Ganesan Karthikeyan, Judith M. Katzenellenbogen, Ntobeko Ntusi, Anna P. Ralph, Anita Saxena, Pierre R. Smeesters, David Watkins, Peter Zilla, Jonathan Carapetis |
| Abstract |
Early recognition of group A streptococcal pharyngitis and appropriate management with benzathine penicillin using local clinical prediction rules together with validated rapi-strep testing when available should be incorporated in primary health care. A directed approach to the differential diagnosis of acute rheumatic fever now includes the concept of low-risk versus medium-to-high risk populations. Initiation of secondary prophylaxis and the establishment of early medium to long-term care plans is a key aspect of the management of ARF. It is a requirement to identify high-risk individuals with RHD such as those with heart failure, pregnant women, and those with severe disease and multiple valve involvement. As penicillin is the mainstay of primary and secondary prevention, further research into penicillin supply chains, alternate preparations and modes of delivery is required. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| South Africa | 1 | 13% |
| Egypt | 1 | 13% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 366 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 366 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 63 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 39 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 34 | 9% |
| Researcher | 28 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 23 | 6% |
| Other | 51 | 14% |
| Unknown | 128 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 153 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 16 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 29 | 8% |
| Unknown | 128 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,595,160
of 23,920,246 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine
#43
of 426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,477
of 310,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,920,246 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 310,797 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.