↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Comparison of classical diagnostic criteria and Chinese revised diagnostic criteria for fever of unknown origin in Chinese patients

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of classical diagnostic criteria and Chinese revised diagnostic criteria for fever of unknown origin in Chinese patients
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s97863
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jia-Jun Li, Wen-Xiang Huang, Zheng-Yu Shi, Qiu Sun, Xiao-Juan Xin, Jin-Qiu Zhao, Zhen Yin

Abstract

Fever of unknown origin (FUO) has always been a challenging problem for physicians since it was first reported half a century ago. This study aimed to investigate the clinical features of FUO and to compare the clinical significance of the classical diagnostic criteria and the Chinese revised diagnostic criteria of FUO. We retrospectively collected a series of 140 patients admitted to our hospital between September 2011 and June 2013 because of prolonged febrile illnesses (lasting at least 2 weeks, temperature ≥38.5°C) without diagnosis and categorized them into two groups according to the Chinese revised diagnostic criteria (group A) and classical diagnostic criteria (group B) for FUO. The A group included patients presenting with fever persisting between 2 and 3 weeks with the diagnosis remaining uncertain after three outpatient visits or at least 3 days of hospital investigation. The B group included patients presenting with fever persisting for more than 3 weeks with no established diagnosis after 1 week of hospital investigation. The general conditions, etiologies, definite diagnosis times, and diagnostic methods of the two groups were compared. There were no significant differences in the general conditions, etiologies, definite diagnosis times, and diagnostic methods between the Chinese revised diagnostic criteria and classical diagnostic criteria. Both the examined FUO diagnostic criteria are suitable for clinical practice in this region.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 25%
Unknown 3 75%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 25%
Student > Master 1 25%
Student > Postgraduate 1 25%
Researcher 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 100%

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 13 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,834,178
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#642
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,412
of 265,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#26
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 265,728 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 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.