| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 14 | 56% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Mauritius | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 92% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,651,145
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#85
of 1,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,553
of 325,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,659 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 94% 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 325,258 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 93% of its contemporaries.