↓ Skip to main content

Serological evidence of exposure to Rickettsia felis and Rickettsia typhi in Australian veterinarians

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Serological evidence of exposure to Rickettsia felis and Rickettsia typhi in Australian veterinarians
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13071-017-2075-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yen Thon Teoh, Sze Fui Hii, Mark A. Stevenson, Stephen Graves, Robert Rees, John Stenos, Rebecca J. Traub

Abstract

Rickettsia felis and Rickettsia typhi are emerging arthropod-borne zoonoses causing fever and flu-like symptoms. Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with exposure to these organisms was explored in Australian veterinarians. One hundred and thirty-one veterinarians from across Australia were recruited to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Veterinarians provided a single blood sample and answered a questionnaire on potential risk factors influencing their exposure to R. felis and R. typhi. Indirect microimmunofluorescence antibody testing (IFAT) was used to identify evidence of serological exposure of the participants to R. felis and R. typhi. Results were analyzed and a logistical regression model performed to predict risk factors associated with seropositivity. In total, 16.0% of participants were seropositive to R. felis, 4.6% to R. typhi and 35.1% seropositive to both, where cross-reactivity of the IFAT between R. felis and R. typhi precluded a definitive diagnosis. Veterinarians residing within the south-eastern states of Victoria and Tasmania were at a higher risk of exposure to R. felis or generalised R. felis or R. typhi exposure. Older veterinarians and those that recommended flea treatment to their clients were found to be significantly protected from exposure. The high exposure to R. felis amongst veterinary professionals suggests that flea-borne spotted fever is an important cause of undifferentiated fever conditions that may not be adequately recognized in Australia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 15 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,074,120
of 23,301,510 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#1,631
of 5,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,249
of 309,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#46
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,301,510 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,548 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 309,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.