↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Application of Bayesian decision-making to laboratory testing for Lyme disease and comparison with testing for HIV

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, April 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 (#33 of 1,668)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
89 X users
facebook
35 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Application of Bayesian decision-making to laboratory testing for Lyme disease and comparison with testing for HIV
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, April 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s131909
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J Cook, Basant K Puri

Abstract

In this study, Bayes' theorem was used to determine the probability of a patient having Lyme disease (LD), given a positive test result obtained using commercial test kits in clinically diagnosed patients. In addition, an algorithm was developed to extend the theorem to the two-tier test methodology. Using a disease prevalence of 5%-75% in samples sent for testing by clinicians, evaluated with a C6 peptide enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), the probability of infection given a positive test ranged from 26.4% when the disease was present in 5% of referrals to 95.3% when disease was present in 75%. When applied in the case of a C6 ELISA followed by a Western blot, the algorithm developed for the two-tier test demonstrated an improvement with the probability of disease given a positive test ranging between 67.2% and 96.6%. Using an algorithm to determine false-positive results, the C6 ELISA generated 73.6% false positives with 5% prevalence and 4.7% false positives with 75% prevalence. Corresponding data for a group of test kits used to diagnose HIV generated false-positive rates from 5.4% down to 0.1% indicating that the LD tests produce up to 46 times more false positives. False-negative test results can also influence patient treatment and outcomes. The probability of a false-negative test for LD with a single test for early-stage disease was high at 66.8%, increasing to 74.9% for two-tier testing. With the least sensitive HIV test used in the two-stage test, the false-negative rate was 1.3%, indicating that the LD test generates ~60 times as many false-negative results. For late-stage LD, the two-tier test generated 16.7% false negatives compared with 0.095% false negatives generated by a two-step HIV test, which is over a 170-fold difference. Using clinically representative LD test sensitivities, the two-tier test generated over 500 times more false-negative results than two-stage HIV testing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Other 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. 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 15 December 2022.
All research outputs
#468,034
of 25,807,758 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#33
of 1,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,639
of 325,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,807,758 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 1,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 325,075 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them