↓ Skip to main content

Time trend of clinical cases of Lyme disease in two hospitals in Belgium, 2000–2013

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Time trend of clinical cases of Lyme disease in two hospitals in Belgium, 2000–2013
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2841-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathilde De Keukeleire, Sophie O. Vanwambeke, Benoît Kabamba, Leila Belkhir, Philippe Pierre, Victor Luyasu, Annie Robert

Abstract

As several studies indicated an increase in Lyme disease (LD), notably in neighbouring countries, concerns have arisen regarding the evolution of Lyme disease in Belgium. In order to confirm or infirm the increase of LD in Belgium, we focused on hospital admissions of patients diagnosed with LD between 2000 and 2013 based on hospital admission databases from two hospitals in Belgium. Hospital databases are a stable recording system. We did a retrospective analysis of the medical files of patients hospitalized with Lyme disease in two Belgian hospitals between 2000 and 2013. The annual number of cases of LD for the two studied Belgian hospitals remained stable between 2000 and 2013, ranging from 1 for the Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc to 15 for the the Clinique Saint-Pierre. No increasing trend were noted in the estimated annual incidence rate but the average estimated annual incidence rate was higher for the hospital Saint-Pierre (8.1 ± 3.7 per 100,000 inhabitants) than Saint-Luc (2.2 ± 1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants). The number of hospital cases of LD peaked between June and November. Based on hospital admissions with LD, no increasing trend was observed for the period 2000-2013 in the two studied Belgian hospitals. This is in line with other studies carried out in Belgium.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 30%
Professor 2 20%
Other 1 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Student > Postgraduate 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 60%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%

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 06 January 2018.
All research outputs
#9,479,721
of 12,372,723 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,939
of 4,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,556
of 353,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#184
of 344 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,723 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,572 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 353,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 344 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.