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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Interferon-γ and CXCL10 responses related to complaints in patients with Q fever fatigue syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-018-3265-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ruud P. H. Raijmakers, Anne F. M. Jansen, Stephan P. Keijmel, Teske Schoffelen, Anja Scholzen, Jos W. M. van der Meer, Leo A. B. Joosten, Mihai G. Netea, Marcel van Deuren, Chantal P. Bleeker-Rovers |
| Abstract |
Approximately 20% of patients with acute Q fever develop Q fever fatigue syndrome (QFS), a debilitating fatigue syndrome. This study further investigates the role of C. burnetii-specific IFNγ, but also IL-2, CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXLC11 production in QFS patients. C. burnetii-specific IFNy, IL-2, CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11 production were tested in ex vivo stimulated whole blood of QFS patients who recovered from their complaints (n = 8), QFS patients with persisting complaints (n = 27), and asymptomatic Q fever seropositive controls (n = 10). With the exclusion of one outlier, stimulation with C. burnetii revealed significantly higher IFNy and CXCL10 production in QFS patients with persisting complaints (medians 288.0 and 176.0 pg/mL, respectively) than in QFS patients who recovered from their complaints (medians 93.0 and 85.5 pg/mL, respectively) (p = 0.041 and 0.045, respectively). No significant differences between groups were found for C. burnetii-specific IL-2, CXCL9, and CXCL11 production. These findings point towards a difference in cell-mediated immunity in QFS patients with persisting complaints compared to those who recovered from their complaints. Such a difference may aid to eventually diagnose QFS more objectively and might serve as an indicator of its underlying etiology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 53% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 58% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,976,833
of 23,085,832 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#2,094
of 2,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,305
of 330,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#22
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,085,832 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.