↓ Skip to main content

Lyme borreliosis — Problems of serological diagnosis

Overview of attention for article published in Infection, November 1996
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Lyme borreliosis — Problems of serological diagnosis
Published in
Infection, November 1996
DOI 10.1007/bf01713052
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. Hofmann

Abstract

As long as test procedures are not standardized, the serological results of IgM- and IgG-antibodies in Lyme borreliosis must be interpreted with caution and always in the context of clinical signs and symptoms. False negative results occur primarily during the first weeks of infection. In erythema migrans of less than 4 weeks' duration, 50% of patients are seronegative even with newly designed ELISAs. At this early stage of the infection the therapeutic decision has to be established on the basis of clinical criteria. Frequently IgM- and/or IgG-antibodies develop during antibiotic therapy. After 4 weeks' duration 80% of patients have elevated borrelial antibodies detectable with recently developed ELISAs. Positive and borderline results should be confirmed by Western blot. False positive results, particularly slightly elevated IgM, may occur in a variety of other diseases. Another problem is the persistence of Borrelia-specific IgM antibodies after therapy. Serological follow-up can only be carried out with the same methods in the same laboratory. Retreatment should be considered if IgM antibodies are increasing significantly and new symptoms are occurring.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Other 5 31%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 13%
Philosophy 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 September 2020.
All research outputs
#4,695,037
of 22,782,096 outputs
Outputs from Infection
#237
of 1,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,835
of 28,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infection
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,782,096 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 28,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them