↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic testing for Legionnaires’ disease

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#44 of 641)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Diagnostic testing for Legionnaires’ disease
Published in
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12941-017-0229-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

David M. Pierre, Julianne Baron, Victor L. Yu, Janet E. Stout

Abstract

Legionnaires' disease is commonly diagnosed clinically using a urinary antigen test. The urinary antigen test is highly accurate for L. pneumophila serogroup 1, however other diagnostic tests should also be utilized in conjunction with the urinary antigen as many other Legionella species and serogroups are pathogenic. Culturing of patient specimens remains the gold standard for diagnosis of Legionnaires' disease. Selective media, BYCE with the addition of antibiotics, allows for a high sensitivity and specificity. Culturing can identify all species and serogroups of Legionella. A major benefit of culturing is that it provides the recovery of a patient isolate, which can be used to find an environmental match. Other diagnostic tests, including DFA and molecular tests such as PCR and LAMP, are useful tests to supplement culturing. Molecular tests provide much more rapid results in comparison to culture, however these tests should not be a primary diagnostic tool given their lower sensitivity and specificity in comparison to culturing. It is recommended that all laboratories develop the ability to culture patient specimens in-house with the selective media.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 15%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Researcher 10 6%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 58 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Environmental Science 4 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 61 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,871,215
of 24,083,187 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#44
of 641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,762
of 319,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,083,187 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 319,424 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 19 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 99% of its contemporaries.