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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Rapid and sensitive real-time assay for the detection of respiratory syncytial virus using RT-SIBA®
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-017-2227-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kevin E. Eboigbodin, Kirsi Moilanen, Sonja Elf, Mark Hoser |
| Abstract |
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is one of the most common causes of respiratory tract infections among young children and the elderly. Timely and accurate diagnosis of respiratory tract infections improves patient care and minimizes unnecessary prescriptions of antibiotics. We sought to develop a rapid nucleic acid tests for the detection of RSV within minutes, while retaining the high sensitivity achieved with RT-PCR. We developed and evaluated a reverse transcription isothermal nucleic acid amplification method, reverse transcription strand invasion based amplification (RT-SIBA), for the rapid detection of RSV. The developed RT-SIBA assay showed good sensitivity by detecting as few as 10 copies of RSV RNA within 20 min compared with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, which took approximately 2 h. The performance of the RT-SIBA RSV assay was further investigated using nasopharyngeal swab specimens. The RT-SIBA assay had a sensitivity of 100% (25/25) and a specificity of 100% (15/15). RT-SIBA did not require highly purified RNA for the rapid detection of RSV and was therefore compatible with rapid specimen processing methods. This reduces the complexity of specimen preparation and further shortens the total amount of time needed to detect RSV in clinical specimens. The developed RT-SIBA assay for RSV could be a useful tool for prompt management of this infection. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 January 2022.
All research outputs
#5,078,670
of 24,081,774 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,675
of 8,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,229
of 429,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#60
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,081,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 429,311 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.