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 |
Smear Campaign: Misattribution of Pancytopenia to a Tick-Borne Illness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-017-4241-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica Lee, Soraya Azzawi, Michael J. Peluso, Aaron Richterman, Haiyan Ramirez Batlle, Maria A. Yialamas |
| Abstract |
We report the case of a 51-year-old woman presenting with a targetoid rash and pancytopenia after a tick bite. Initial evaluation was notable for severe neutropenia on the complete blood cell count differential, a positive Lyme IgM antibody, and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating atypical lymphocytes. While her pancytopenia was initially attributed to tick-borne illness, peripheral flow cytometry showed 7% myeloblasts, and a bone marrow biopsy confirmed 60% blasts. The patient was ultimately diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia, in addition to early, localized Lyme disease. This case highlights the differential diagnosis for pancytopenia, cytopenia patterns for different tick-borne illnesses, the risk of premature closure in internal medicine, and management of Lyme disease in hosts with altered immunity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,687,152
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#5,824
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,007
of 447,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#94
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 447,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.