↓ Skip to main content

The Clinical, Symptom, and Quality-of-Life Characterization of a Well-Defined Group of Patients with Posttreatment Lyme Disease Syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, December 2017
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 (#24 of 7,199)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
62 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
93 X users
facebook
16 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
The Clinical, Symptom, and Quality-of-Life Characterization of a Well-Defined Group of Patients with Posttreatment Lyme Disease Syndrome
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00224
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison W. Rebman, Kathleen T. Bechtold, Ting Yang, Erica A. Mihm, Mark J. Soloski, Cheryl B. Novak, John N. Aucott

Abstract

The increased incidence and geographic expansion of Lyme disease has made it the most common vector-borne infection in North America. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS) represents a subset of patients who remain ill following standard antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease. The spectrum of symptoms and their impact on quality of life remain largely unexplored among patients with well-documented PTLDS. To characterize a case series of patients with well-documented PTLDS compared to a sample of healthy controls. Sixty-one participants met the proposed case definition for PTLDS. Twenty-six healthy controls had neither a clinical history of Lyme disease nor current antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi. Participants with PTLDS and controls were evaluated by physical exam, clinical laboratory testing, standardized questionnaires, and a 36-item current symptom list. Compared to controls, participants with PTLDS reported significantly greater fatigue, pain, sleep disturbance, and depression (Fatigue Severity Scale: 50.0 ± 10.6 vs. 19.8 ± 8.6; Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire: 13.7 ± 8.3 vs. 0.8 ± 1.9; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: 10.1 ± 4.7 vs. 4.1 ± 2.1; Beck Depression Inventory-II: 15.1 ± 7.7 vs. 2.2 ± 3.2; p < 0.001 for each), and significantly lower quality of life (SF-36 Physical Component Score: 33.9 ± 9.7 vs. 55.1 ± 6.2; Mental Component Score: 42.9 ± 10.1 vs. 54.2 ± 5.4; p < 0.001 for each). Nineteen non-PTLDS-defining symptoms were found to be significantly more severe among participants with PTLDS than controls, including sleep difficultly and visual complaints. Initial delayed or misdiagnosis was characterized in 59.0% of participants with PTLDS, and 32.2% had abnormal vibratory sense. Although physical exam and clinical laboratory tests showed few objective abnormalities, standardized symptom questionnaires revealed that patients with PTLDS are highly and clinically significantly symptomatic, with poor health-related quality of life. PTLDS patients exhibited levels of fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, sleep disturbance, and depression which were both clinically relevant and statistically significantly higher than controls. Our study shows that PTLDS can be successfully identified using a systematic approach to diagnosis and symptom measurement. As the prevalence of PTLDS continues to rise, there will be an increased need for physician education to more effectively identify and manage PTLDS as part of integrated patient care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 93 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 20%
Student > Master 22 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Other 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 31 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 42 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 555. 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 17 June 2023.
All research outputs
#43,417
of 25,425,223 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#24
of 7,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#942
of 443,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#1
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,425,223 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,199 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 443,834 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 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 99% of its contemporaries.