↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Commercial test kits for detection of Lyme borreliosis: a meta-analysis of test accuracy

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, November 2016
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 (#13 of 471)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
79 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
22 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Commercial test kits for detection of Lyme borreliosis: a meta-analysis of test accuracy
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s122313
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Cook, Basant Puri

Abstract

The clinical diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis can be supported by various test methodologies; test kits are available from many manufacturers. Literature searches were carried out to identify studies that reported characteristics of the test kits. Of 50 searched studies, 18 were included where the tests were commercially available and samples were proven to be positive using serology testing, evidence of an erythema migrans rash, and/or culture. Additional requirements were a test specificity of ≥85% and publication in the last 20 years. The weighted mean sensitivity for all tests and for all samples was 59.5%. Individual study means varied from 30.6% to 86.2%. Sensitivity for each test technology varied from 62.4% for Western blot kits, and 62.3% for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests, to 53.9% for synthetic C6 peptide ELISA tests and 53.7% when the two-tier methodology was used. Test sensitivity increased as dissemination of the pathogen affected different organs; however, the absence of data on the time from infection to serological testing and the lack of standard definitions for "early" and "late" disease prevented analysis of test sensitivity versus time of infection. The lack of standardization of the definitions of disease stage and the possibility of retrospective selection bias prevented clear evaluation of test sensitivity by "stage". The sensitivity for samples classified as acute disease was 35.4%, with a corresponding sensitivity of 64.5% for samples from patients defined as convalescent. Regression analysis demonstrated an improvement of 4% in test sensitivity over the 20-year study period. The studies did not provide data to indicate the sensitivity of tests used in a clinical setting since the effect of recent use of antibiotics or steroids or other factors affecting antibody response was not factored in. The tests were developed for only specific Borrelia species; sensitivities for other species could not be calculated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 7 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 19 September 2020.
All research outputs
#308,957
of 15,880,432 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#13
of 471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,752
of 390,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,880,432 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 471 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 390,174 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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.