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 |
Performance and time to become negative after treatment of three malaria rapid diagnostic tests in low and high malaria transmission settings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12936-016-1529-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesco Grandesso, Carolyn Nabasumba, Dan Nyehangane, Anne-Laure Page, Mathieu Bastard, Martin De Smet, Yap Boum, Jean-François Etard |
| Abstract |
The performance of different malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) may be influenced by transmission intensity and by the length of time each test requires to become negative after treatment and patient's recovery. Results of three RDTs (two HRP2 and one pLDH antigen-based tests) were compared to blood smear microscopy (the gold standard method) in children under 5 years of age living in a high versus low malaria intensity setting in southwestern Uganda. In each setting, 212 children, who tested positive by at least one RDT and by microscopy, were treated with artemether-lumefantrine. RDTs and microscopy were then repeated at fixed intervals to estimate each test's time to negativity after treatment and patient recovery. In the two settings, sensitivities ranged from 98.4 to 99.2 % for the HRP2 tests and 94.7 to 96.1 % for the pLDH test. Specificities were 98.9 and 98.8 % for the HRP2 tests and 99.7 % for the pLDH test in the low-transmission setting and 79.7, 80.7 and 93.9 %, respectively, in the high-transmission setting. Median time to become negative was 35-42 or more days for the HRP2 tests and 2 days for the pLDH test. High transmission contexts and a long time to become negative resulted in considerably reduced specificities for the HRP2 tests. Choice of RDT for low- versus high-transmission settings should balance risks and benefits of over-treatment versus missing malaria cases. Registry number at ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01325974. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mozambique | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 108 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 25 April 2017.
All research outputs
#2,941,520
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#702
of 5,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,244
of 319,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#20
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 319,862 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.