↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility of HIV point-of-care tests for resource-limited settings: challenges and solutions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 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
Feasibility of HIV point-of-care tests for resource-limited settings: challenges and solutions
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0173-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wendy Stevens, Natasha Gous, Nathan Ford, Lesley E Scott

Abstract

Improved access to anti-retroviral therapy increases the need for affordable monitoring using assays such as CD4 and/or viral load in resource-limited settings. Barriers to accessing treatment, high rates of loss to initiation and poor retention in care are prompting the need to find alternatives to conventional centralized laboratory testing in certain countries. Strong advocacy has led to a rapidly expanding repertoire of point-of-care tests for HIV. point-of-care testing is not without its challenges: poor regulatory control, lack of guidelines, absence of quality monitoring and lack of industry standards for connectivity, to name a few. The management of HIV increasingly requires a multidisciplinary testing approach involving hematology, chemistry, and tests associated with the management of non-communicable diseases, thus added expertise is needed. This is further complicated by additional human resource requirements and the need for continuous training, a sustainable supply chain, and reimbursement strategies. It is clear that to ensure appropriate national implementation either in a tiered laboratory model or a total decentralized model, clear country-specific assessments need to be conducted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 151 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 22%
Student > Master 26 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 31 20%
Unknown 20 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 25%
Engineering 14 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Other 41 27%
Unknown 28 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,207,576
of 23,926,844 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,104
of 3,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,358
of 241,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#54
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,926,844 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.7. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 241,561 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.