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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF and MODS assay for the diagnosis of pediatric tuberculosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2334-13-31 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nguyen Thi Quynh Nhu, Dang Thi Minh Ha, Nguyen Duc Anh, Do Dang Anh Thu, Tran Ngoc Duong, Nguyen Dang Quang, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Lan, Tran Van Quyet, Nguyen Thi Bich Tuyen, Vo Thi Ha, Do Chau Giang, Nguyen Huy Dung, Marcel Wolbers, Jeremy Farrar, Maxine Caws |
| Abstract |
Tuberculosis (TB) in children is rarely confirmed due to the lack of effective diagnostic tools; only 10 to 15% of pediatric TB is smear positive due to paucibacillary samples and the difficulty of obtaining high-quality specimens from children. We evaluate here the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF in comparison with the Micoroscopic observation drug susceptibility (MODS) assay for diagnosis of TB in children using samples stored during a previously reported evaluation of the MODS assay. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 17% |
| Mexico | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Rwanda | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 135 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 42% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 11% |
| Unknown | 29 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 September 2014.
All research outputs
#4,822,300
of 23,504,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,568
of 7,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,944
of 284,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#29
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,504,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 284,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.