↓ Skip to main content

No association found between the detection of either xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus or polytropic murine leukemia virus and chronic fatigue syndrome in a blinded, multi-site…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
No association found between the detection of either xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus or polytropic murine leukemia virus and chronic fatigue syndrome in a blinded, multi-site, prospective study by the establishment and use of the SolveCFS BioBank
Published in
BMC Research Notes, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-7-461
Pubmed ID
Authors

David M Irlbeck, Suzanne D Vernon, K Kimberly McCleary, Lucinda Bateman, Nancy G Klimas, Charles W Lapp, Daniel L Peterson, James R Brown, Katja S Remlinger, David A Wilfret, Peter Gerondelis

Abstract

In 2009, a retrospective study reported the detection of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) in clinical isolates derived from individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS). While many efforts to confirm this observation failed, one report detected polytropic murine leukemia virus (pMLV), instead of XMRV. In both studies, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-based methods were employed which could provide the basis for the development of a practical diagnostic tool. To confirm these studies, we hypothesized that the ability to detect these viruses will not only depend upon the technical details of the methods employed but also on the criteria used to diagnose CFS and the availability of well characterized clinical isolates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 18%
Researcher 3 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 13 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,926,839
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#239
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,854
of 229,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#13
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 229,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 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 90% of its contemporaries.