↓ Skip to main content

Spatial Dynamics of Lyme Disease: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, June 2008
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 (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Spatial Dynamics of Lyme Disease: A Review
Published in
EcoHealth, June 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10393-008-0171-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary E. Killilea, Andrea Swei, Robert S. Lane, Cheryl J. Briggs, Richard S. Ostfeld

Abstract

Lyme disease (LD), the most frequently reported vector-borne disease in the United States, requires that humans, infected vector ticks, and infected hosts all occur in close spatial proximity. Understanding the spatial dynamics of LD requires an understanding of the spatial determinants of each of these organisms. We review the literature on spatial patterns and environmental correlates of human cases of LD and the vector ticks, Ixodes scapularis in the northeastern and midwestern United States and Ixodes pacificus in the western United States. The results of this review highlight a need for a more standardized and comprehensive approach to studying the spatial dynamics of the LD system. Specifically, we found that the only environmental variable consistently associated with increased LD risk and incidence was the presence of forests. However, the reasons why some forests are associated with higher risk and incidence than others are still poorly understood. We suspect that the discordance among studies is due, in part, to the rapid developments in both conceptual and technological aspects of spatial ecology hastening the obsolescence of earlier approaches. Significant progress in identifying the determinants of spatial variation in LD risk and incidence requires that: (1) existing knowledge of the biology of the individual components of each LD system is utilized in the development of spatial models; (2) spatial data are collected over longer periods of time; (3) data collection and analysis among regions are more standardized; and (4) the effect of the same environmental variables is tested at multiple spatial scales.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 3%
Canada 3 1%
France 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 195 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 22%
Researcher 35 17%
Student > Master 25 12%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Professor 13 6%
Other 45 22%
Unknown 24 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 87 42%
Environmental Science 27 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 10 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 30 14%
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 29 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,695,037
of 22,782,096 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#250
of 706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,803
of 82,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#2
of 6 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 706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 82,459 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.