↓ Skip to main content

Screening for cryptococcal antigenemia using the lateral flow assay in antiretroviral therapy-naïve HIV-positive adults at an Ethiopian hospital clinic

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Screening for cryptococcal antigenemia using the lateral flow assay in antiretroviral therapy-naïve HIV-positive adults at an Ethiopian hospital clinic
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1707-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anton Reepalu, Taye T. Balcha, Tadele Yitbarek, Godana Jarso, Erik Sturegård, Per Björkman

Abstract

Since treatment for latent cryptococcal infection (CI) before starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) reduces mortality in HIV-infected subjects, screening for cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) in blood is recommended for individuals with CD4 cell counts < 100 cells/µL in regions with high CI prevalence. We assessed CrAg screening using the lateral flow assay in HIV-infected adults eligible for ART in central Ethiopia. HIV-positive patients (age ≥ 18 years, CD4 cell count < 350 cells/μL and/or WHO stage IV, no current or previous ART) were recruited at Adama Regional Hospital, Ethiopia (February 2013 until March 2014). CrAg was determined in plasma by lateral flow assay. Among 129 included participants (median age 35 years, 64 % female) the median CD4 cell count was 210 cells/μL (interquartile range 110-309); 29 (23 %) had CD4 cell count < 100 cells/μL. Two (1.6 %) participants were CrAg-positive (CD4 cell counts 171 vs. 250 cells/µL), one of whom had clinically manifest cryptococcal meningitis at the time of testing. In contrast to two recent reports from Ethiopia, we found few cases of CI among ART-naïve adults. Our study, which is the first using lateral flow assay for CrAg screening in this country, illustrates the need of larger surveys of CI prevalence among ART-naïve patients before defining recommendations on CI screening.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 24%
Researcher 5 14%
Other 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 43%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Chemistry 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,340,423
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,565
of 4,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323,810
of 386,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#136
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 386,385 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.