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 |
Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF testing for rapid diagnosis of childhood pulmonary tuberculosis in children by Xpert MTB/RIF testing of stool samples in a low resource setting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-017-2806-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zahra Hasan, Sadia Shakoor, Fehmina Arif, Aisha Mehnaz, Alnoor Akber, Marium Haider, Akbar Kanji, Rumina Hasan |
| Abstract |
Children with tuberculosis (TB) remain underdiagnosed due to difficulty in testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) infection. We evaluated the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for respiratory and stool testing in children for pulmonary TB through a cross-sectional study at tertiary care facilities in Karachi, Pakistan. Fifty children aged 0-15 years screened by a modified Kenneth-Jones (KJ) score were included. Mycobacterial culture of respiratory samples was the microbiological standard against stool Xpert TB results. All positive TB cases were compared against a treatment response standard (TRS). Twelve study subjects were diagnosed by Xpert TB and nine by MTB culture. Compared with culture [gastric aspirates (GA)/sputum (spm)], stool Xpert TB had a sensitivity of 88.9% (95% CI 50.7-99.4) and a specificity of 95% (95% CI 81.8-99.1). Xpert TB stool versus GA/spm had sensitivity of 81.8% (95% CI 47.8-96.8) and specificity of 94.7% (95% CI 84.6-99.9). We found good agreement (kappa scores of >0.8) between stool Xpert, GA/spm Xpert and GA/spm culture. Stool Xpert PPV and NPV against TRS was 100 and 82.1% respectively. Stool Xpert TB is a relatively easy option for diagnosis for pulmonary childhood TB in a high burden low-resource setting. |
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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 22 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 47% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Energy | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 26 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,154,235
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,061
of 4,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,179
of 322,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#24
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 322,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.