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 of Mycobacterium Growth Indicator Tube BACTEC 960 with Lowenstein–Jensen method for diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis at Ethiopian National Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-017-2497-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Getu Diriba, Abebaw Kebede, Zelalem Yaregal, Muluwork Getahun, Mengistu Tadesse, Abyot Meaza, Zekarias Dagne, Shewki Moga, Jibril Dilebo, Kebebe Gudena, Mulu Hassen, Kassu Desta |
| Abstract |
Bacteriological confirmed active case detection remains the corner stone for diagnosing tuberculosis. Non-radiometric liquid culture system Mycobacterium Growth Indicator Tube with automated interface had been recommended by expert groups in addition to conventional solid culture media such as Lowenstein-Jensen. However in high burden resource limited countries advanced non-radiometric based tuberculosis diagnostic methods such as MGIT 960 is limited. Therefore we have evaluated the performance of MGIT 960 system compared to LJ for recovery of Mycobacterium complex (MTBC) from clinical specimens. A cross sectional study was conducted from a total of 908 samples between January 1st, 2013 to December 31st, 2014. Clinical specimens were processed following standard procedures and the final suspension was inoculated to MGIT tubes and LJ slant. Identification and confirmation of MTBC was done by ZN staining and SD Bioline test. Data was analyzed by SPSS version 20. The sensitivity, specificity, recovery rate and the average turnaround time to recover the organism was computed. From a total of 908 clinical specimens processed using both LJ and BACTEC MGIT liquid culture methods the recovery rate for LJ and MGIT, for smear positive samples was 66.7% (74/111) and 87.4% (97/ 111) respectively while for smear negative samples was 13.4% (108/797) and 17.4% (139/797) for LJ and MGIT methods respectively. The overall recovery rate for MGIT is significantly higher than LJ methods [26% (236/908; vs. 20%, 182/908, P = 0.002)]. The average turnaround time for smear positive samples was 16 and 31 days for MGIT and LJ respectively. Turnaround time for smear negative samples was 20 and 36 days for MGIT and LJ respectively. The overall agreement between MGIT and LJ was fairly good with Kappa value of 0.59 (P < 0.001). In the present study the contamination rate for MGIT is higher than the LJ methods, 15 and 9.3% respectively. The BACTEC MGIT liquid culture system has better MTBC recovery rate with shorter turnaround time for both smear positive and negative clinical specimens compared to Conventional LJ method. However, efforts should be made in order to reduce the high contamination rate in BACTEC MGIT system and to lesser extent to LJ methods. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 99 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 47 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 49 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,547,867
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,035
of 4,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,843
of 310,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#34
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 310,791 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.