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 |
Comparison of direct versus concentrated smear microscopy in detection of pulmonary tuberculosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1756-0500-6-291 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammad Khaja Mafij Uddin, Md Raihan Chowdhury, Shahriar Ahmed, Md Toufiq Rahman, Razia Khatun, Frank van Leth, Sayera Banu |
| Abstract |
Sputum smear microscopy is fast and inexpensive technique for detecting tuberculosis (TB) in high incidence areas but has low sensitivity. Physical and chemical sputum processing along with centrifugation have been found to show promise in overcoming this limitation. Our objective was to compare the sensitivity of smear microscopy obtained with smears made directly from respiratory specimens to those from concentrated specimens. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 104 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 16% |
| Researcher | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 30 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 33 | 31% |
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 25 July 2013.
All research outputs
#14,755,656
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,120
of 4,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,799
of 198,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#32
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,257 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 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 198,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.