↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Empirical validation of the Horowitz Multiple Systemic Infectious Disease Syndrome Questionnaire for suspected Lyme disease

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 526)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 tweeters
facebook
26 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Empirical validation of the Horowitz Multiple Systemic Infectious Disease Syndrome Questionnaire for suspected Lyme disease
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s140224
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maryalice Citera, Phyllis R Freeman, Richard I Horowitz

Abstract

Lyme disease is spreading worldwide, with multiple Borrelia species causing a broad range of clinical symptoms that mimic other illnesses. A validated Lyme disease screening questionnaire would be clinically useful for both providers and patients. Three studies evaluated such a screening tool, namely the Horowitz Multiple Systemic Infectious Disease Syndrome (MSIDS) Questionnaire. The purpose was to see if the questionnaire could accurately distinguish between Lyme patients and healthy individuals. Study 1 examined the construct validity of the scale examining its factor structure and reliability of the questionnaire among 537 individuals being treated for Lyme disease. Study 2 involved an online sample of 999 participants, who self-identified as either healthy (N=217) or suffering from Lyme now (N=782) who completed the Horowitz MSIDS Questionnaire (HMQ) along with an outdoor activity survey. We examined convergent validity among components of the scale and evaluated discriminant validity with the Big Five personality characteristics. The third study compared a sample of 236 patients with confirmed Lyme disease with an online sample of 568 healthy individuals. Factor analysis results identified six underlying latent dimensions; four of these overlapped with critical symptoms identified by Horowitz - neuropathy, cognitive dysfunction, musculoskeletal pain, and fatigue. The HMQ showed acceptable levels of internal reliability using Cronbach's coefficient alpha and exhibited evidence of convergent and divergent validity. Components of the HMQ correlated more highly with each other than with unrelated traits. The results consistently demonstrated that the HMQ accurately differentiated those with Lyme disease from healthy individuals. Three migratory pain survey items (persistent muscular pain, arthritic pain, and nerve pain/paresthesias) robustly identified individuals with verified Lyme disease. The results support the use of the HMQ as a valid, efficient, and low-cost screening tool for medical practitioners to decide if additional testing is warranted to distinguish between Lyme disease and other illnesses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 26%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 12 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#853,651
of 16,607,885 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#40
of 526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,723
of 276,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,607,885 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 276,251 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 91% of its contemporaries.