↓ Skip to main content

Zika Virus and Guillain–Barre Syndrome: Is There Sufficient Evidence for Causality?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Zika Virus and Guillain–Barre Syndrome: Is There Sufficient Evidence for Causality?
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2016.00170
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Arturo Leis, Dobrivoje S. Stokic

Abstract

Worldwide concern over Zika virus causing Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) soared after recent reports that Zika-related weakness was due to GBS. A global strategic response plan was initiated with recommendations for at-risk countries to prepare for GBS. This plan has major economic implications, as nations with limited resources struggle to implement costly immunotherapy. Since confirmation of causality is prerequisite to providing specific management recommendations, it is prudent to review data endorsing a GBS diagnosis. We searched PubMed for manuscripts reporting original clinical, laboratory, and electrodiagnostic data on Zika virus and GBS. Five papers met criteria; four case reports and one large case-control study (French Polynesia) that attributed 42 paralysis cases to a motor variant of GBS. Brighton criteria were reportedly used to diagnose GBS, but no differential diagnosis was presented, which violates criteria. GBS was characterized by early onset (median 6 days post-viral syndrome), rapid progression (median 6 days from onset to nadir), and atypical clinical features (52% lacked areflexia, 48% of facial palsies were unilateral). Electrodiagnostic evaluations fell short of guidelines endorsed by American Academy of Neurology. Typical anti-ganglioside antibodies in GBS motor variants were rarely present. We conclude that there is no causal relationship between Zika virus and GBS because data failed to confirm GBS and exclude other causes of paralysis. Focus should be redirected at differential diagnosis, proper use of diagnostic criteria, and electrodiagnosis that follows recommended guidelines. We also call for a moratorium on recommendations for at-risk countries to prepare costly immunotherapies directed at GBS.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 96 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 21%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 25 26%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 19 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 October 2016.
All research outputs
#13,788,191
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#5,413
of 11,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,847
of 322,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#34
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 322,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.