↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the treatment of erythema migrans in early Lyme borreliosis—systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the treatment of erythema migrans in early Lyme borreliosis—systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0251-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Torbahn, Gabriel, Hofmann, Heidelore, Allert, Roman, Freitag, Michael H, Dersch, Rick, Fingerle, Volker, Sommer, Harriet, Motschall, Edith, Meerpohl, Jörg J, Schmucker, Christine

Abstract

Erythema migrans represents an early cutaneous and most common manifestation of Lyme borreliosis. Recommendations regarding pharmacological agents, dose and duration of treatment are subject of intense debate. This review aims to explore differences in efficacy and safety between pharmacological treatments and control treatment. To identify relevant studies, we will conduct a systematic literature search. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Eligible comparative studies need to (1) consider patients with a diagnosis of erythema migrans resulting from Lyme borreliosis and (2) compare different pharmacological agents against each other, against any other non-pharmacological treatment, placebo or no treatment. Two review authors will independently assess included studies for risk of bias according to the methods of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and related to specific study designs. We will address patient-relevant outcomes including clinical remission of cutaneous symptoms, any treatment-related adverse events, quality of life and progressive symptoms such as neuroborreliosis or Lyme carditis and flu-like symptoms. Provided that the identified trials are comparable in terms of clinical issues, combined estimates will be provided. Estimations of treatment effects will be calculated based on a random effects model. Heterogeneity will be evaluated based on I (2) and chi-square test. In case of significant heterogeneity, a pooled estimate will not be provided, but heterogeneity will be investigated on the basis of methodological and clinical study aspects. We plan subgroup analysis to reveal potential differences in the effect estimates between patient populations and treatment specifications. We will consider risk of bias using sensitivity analyses to decide whether to rely on the pooled estimates. The quality of a body of evidence for individual outcomes will be assessed using the GRADE approach. Benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment in erythema migrans have not yet been adequately assessed. This systematic review will evaluate and summarise available evidence addressing benefits and harms of different pharmacological treatments. In addition, this summary of clinical evidence will inform decision-making between clinicians and patients and will play an important part in patient care. CRD42016037932.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Professor 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 11 28%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Materials Science 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 4 10%

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 05 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,963,097
of 7,657,182 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#454
of 608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,768
of 266,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#34
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,657,182 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 266,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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.