↓ Skip to main content

Are vector-borne pathogen co-infections complicating the clinical presentation in dogs?

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are vector-borne pathogen co-infections complicating the clinical presentation in dogs?
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1756-3305-6-97
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Sara De Tommasi, Domenico Otranto, Filipe Dantas-Torres, Gioia Capelli, Edward B Breitschwerdt, Donato de Caprariis

Abstract

Infection by two or more canine vector-borne disease (CVBD)-causing pathogens is common in subtropical and tropical regions where vectors are plentiful. Co-infections may potentiate disease pathogenesis, thereby altering clinical manifestations typically associated with singular infections. These factors complicate diagnosis, treatment and can adversely influence prognosis if the practitioner fails to suspect, document, and treat each concurrent infection. The spectrum of pathogens co-infecting dogs may change over time in a given practice location due to the rapid expansion of arthropods and their associated vectored agents, and international transit among pets and wild animals. This applies, for example, to Dirofilaria immitis and Leishmania infantum, the distributions of which have expanded from northern to southern Italy, and vice versa, respectively. Indeed, mixed infections by D. immitis and L. infantum have only been reported once in Italy, probably due to the fact that competent vectors for these infections do not usually occur in the same geographical areas. Thus, information that would help practitioners to identify clinical presentations in dogs co-infected by D. immitis and L. infantum and other CVBD-causing pathogens is scant.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Malaysia 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 91 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Researcher 8 8%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 30 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 22 23%

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 21 April 2013.
All research outputs
#9,968,012
of 12,451,686 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,378
of 3,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,811
of 144,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,451,686 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,208 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 144,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.