↓ Skip to main content

Tick toxicity in cats caused by Ixodes species in Australia: a review of published literature

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#47 of 1,805)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Tick toxicity in cats caused by Ixodes species in Australia: a review of published literature
Published in
Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jfms.2007.06.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel N. Schull, Annette L. Litster, Richard B. Atwell

Abstract

Tick toxicity in cats caused by Ixodes holocyclus and related species is a common medical condition on the east coast of Australia. Intoxication typically causes a flaccid ascending neuromuscular paralysis and clinical signs can include anxiety, dysphonia, hind limb weakness and/or ataxia, pupillary dilation, respiratory signs and possible bladder voiding dysfunction. Diagnosis is made with a combination of appropriate clinical signs and visualisation of tick(s) on a thorough body search. Cases are classified clinically using a scoring system, which grades neuromuscular weakness and respiratory compromise. The mainstays of treatment are tick removal, administration of tick antitoxin serum and intensive supportive care. Given a prompt and appropriate management regimen, prognosis is good, according to available literature. Most of the literature concerning tick toxicity in cats is anecdotal in nature and an evidence-based review of what is known of this condition has not previously been published.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 3%
United States 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 56 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 27%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 20 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Chemistry 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. 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 2016.
All research outputs
#549,832
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery
#47
of 1,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,881
of 310,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery
#1
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,805 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 310,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 97% of its contemporaries.