↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for the diagnosis of childhood pulmonary tuberculosis in Uganda: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
Evaluation of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for the diagnosis of childhood pulmonary tuberculosis in Uganda: a cross-sectional diagnostic study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-13-133
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moorine Penninah Sekadde, Eric Wobudeya, Moses L Joloba, Willy Ssengooba, Harriet Kisembo, Sabrina Bakeera-Kitaka, Philippa Musoke

Abstract

The diagnosis of childhood tuberculosis remains a challenge worldwide. The Xpert MTB/RIF test, a rapid mycobacteria tuberculosis diagnostic tool, was recommended for use in children based on data from adult studies. We evaluated the performance of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for the diagnosis of childhood pulmonary tuberculosis using one induced sputum sample and described clinical characteristics associated with a positive Xpert MTB/RIF test. The sputum culture on both Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) and Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) was the gold standard.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Rwanda 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Unknown 148 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 19%
Student > Postgraduate 20 13%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Other 13 9%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 27 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 31 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,687,704
of 24,933,778 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#829
of 8,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,413
of 200,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#12
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,933,778 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 200,554 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 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 92% of its contemporaries.