↓ Skip to main content

To test or not to test? Laboratory support for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis: a position paper of ESGBOR, the ESCMID study group for Lyme borreliosis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection, September 2017
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
To test or not to test? Laboratory support for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis: a position paper of ESGBOR, the ESCMID study group for Lyme borreliosis
Published in
Clinical Microbiology and Infection, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.08.025
Pubmed ID
Authors

R.B. Dessau, A.P. van Dam, V. Fingerle, J. Gray, J.W. Hovius, K.-P. Hunfeld, B. Jaulhac, O. Kahl, W. Kristoferitsch, P.-E. Lindgren, M. Markowicz, S. Mavin, K. Ornstein, T. Rupprecht, G. Stanek, F. Strle

Abstract

Lyme borreliosis (LB) is a tick-borne infection caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. The most frequent clinical manifestations are erythema migrans and Lyme neuroborreliosis. Currently, a large volume of diagnostic testing for Lyme borreliosis is reported, whereas the incidence of clinically relevant disease manifestations is low. This indicates overuse of diagnostic testing for LB with implications for patient care and cost effective health management. The recommendations provided in this review are intended to support both the clinical diagnosis and initiatives for a more rational use of laboratory testing in patients with clinically suspected Lyme borreliosis. This is a narrative review combining various aspects of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis with an educational purpose. The literature search was based on existing systematic reviews, national and international guidelines and supplemented with specific citations. The main recommendations according to current European case definitions for Lyme borreliosis are as follows: Typical erythema migrans should be diagnosed clinically and does not require laboratory testing, the diagnosis of Lyme neuroborreliosis requires laboratory investigation of the spinal fluid including intrathecal antibody production for, and the remaining disease manifestations require testing for antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi. Testing individuals with non-specific subjective symptoms is not recommended, because of a low positive predictive value.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Master 14 11%
Other 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 27 22%
Unknown 31 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 4%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 43 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 01 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,348,484
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Microbiology and Infection
#825
of 4,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,979
of 327,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Microbiology and Infection
#20
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,724 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 327,281 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 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.