↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of Rickettsia spp. in Ticks and Serological and Clinical Outcomes in Tick-Bitten Individuals in Sweden and on the Åland Islands

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 tweeters
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
Prevalence of Rickettsia spp. in Ticks and Serological and Clinical Outcomes in Tick-Bitten Individuals in Sweden and on the Åland Islands
Published in
PLoS ONE, November 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0166653
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anders Lindblom, Katarina Wallménius, Johanna Sjöwall, Linda Fryland, Peter Wilhelmsson, Per-Eric Lindgren, Pia Forsberg, Kenneth Nilsson

Abstract

Tick-transmitted diseases are an emerging health problem, and the hard tick Ixodes ricinus is the main vector for Borrelia spp., tick-borne encephalitis virus and most of the spotted fever Rickettsiae in Europe. The aim of the present study was to examine the incidence of rickettsial infection in the southernmost and south central parts of Sweden and the Åland Islands in Finland, the risk of infection in humans and its correlation with a bite of a Rickettsia-infected tick, the self-reported symptoms of rickettsial disease, and the prevalence of co-infection between Rickettsia spp. and Borrelia spp. Persons with a recent tick bite were enrolled through public media and asked to answer a questionnaire, provide a blood sample and bring detached ticks at enlistment and at follow-up three months later. Blood samples were previously analysed for Borrelia spp. antibodies and, for this report, analysed for antibodies to Rickettsia spp. by immunofluorescence and in 16 cases also using Western Blot. Ninety-six (44.0%) of the 218 participants were seropositive for IgG antibodies to Rickettsia spp. Forty (18.3%) of the seropositive participants had increased titres at the follow-up, indicating recent/current infection, while four (1.8%) had titres indicating probable recent/current infection (≥1:256). Of 472 ticks, 39 (8.3%) were Rickettsia sp. positive. Five (31.3%) of 16 participants bitten by a Rickettsia-infected tick seroconverted. Experience of the self-reported symptoms nausea (p = 0.006) and radiating pain (p = 0.041) was more common among those with recent, current or probable infection compared to those who did not seroconvert. Participants who showed seroreactivity or seroconversion to Rickettsia spp. had more symptoms than those who were seronegative. Seven (3.2%) participants showed seroconversion to Borrelia spp., and three (1.4%) of these showed seroconversion to both Rickettsia spp. and Borrelia spp., in accordance with previous studies in Sweden. Symptoms of rickettsial disease were in most of the cases vague and general that were difficult to differentiate from other tick-borne diseases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 20%
Unknown 4 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 1 20%
Student > Postgraduate 1 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 20%
Researcher 1 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 20%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 60%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#675,548
of 7,737,442 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#15,086
of 109,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,881
of 209,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#528
of 3,807 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,737,442 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 109,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 209,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,807 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.