↓ Skip to main content

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Lyme guidelines: a cautionary tale about the development of clinical practice guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 205)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
24 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
The Infectious Diseases Society of America Lyme guidelines: a cautionary tale about the development of clinical practice guidelines
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2010
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-5-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lorraine Johnson, Raphael B Stricker

Abstract

Flawed clinical practice guidelines may compromise patient care. Commercial conflicts of interest on panels that write treatment guidelines are particularly problematic, because panelists may have conflicting agendas that influence guideline recommendations. Historically, there has been no legal remedy for conflicts of interest on guidelines panels. However, in May 2008, the Attorney General of Connecticut concluded a ground-breaking antitrust investigation into the development of Lyme disease treatment guidelines by one of the largest medical societies in the United States, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Although the investigation found significant flaws in the IDSA guidelines development process, the subsequent review of the guidelines mandated by the settlement was compromised by a lack of impartiality at various stages of the IDSA review process. This article will examine the interplay between the recent calls for guidelines reform, the ethical canons of medicine, and due process considerations under antitrust laws as they apply to the formulation of the IDSA Lyme disease treatment guidelines. The article will also discuss pitfalls in the implementation of the IDSA antitrust settlement that should be avoided in the future.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 66 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 20%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 18 26%
Unknown 3 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 13%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Psychology 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 7 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 19 September 2020.
All research outputs
#529,628
of 19,463,333 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#7
of 205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,760
of 233,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,463,333 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 233,845 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 99% of its contemporaries.