↓ Skip to main content

Molecular surveillance of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 deletions in Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Mozambique

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Molecular surveillance of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 deletions in Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Mozambique
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2061-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Himanshu Gupta, Gloria Matambisso, Beatriz Galatas, Pau Cisteró, Lidia Nhamussua, Wilson Simone, Jane Cunningham, N. Regina Rabinovich, Pedro Alonso, Francisco Saute, Pedro Aide, Alfredo Mayor

Abstract

Malaria programmes use Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein-2 (PfHRP2) based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for malaria diagnosis. The deletion of this target antigen could potentially lead to misdiagnosis, delayed treatment and continuation of active transmission. Plasmodium falciparum isolates (n = 1162) collected in Southern Mozambique were assessed by RDTs, microscopy and/or 18SrRNA qPCR. pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 deletions were investigated in isolates from individuals who were negative by RDT but positive by microscopy and/or qPCR (n = 69) using gene-specific PCRs, with kelch13 PCR as the parasite DNA control. Lack of pfhrp2 PCR amplification was observed in one of the 69 isolates subjected to molecular analysis [1.45% (95% CI 0.3-7.8%)]. The low prevalence of pfhrp2 deletions suggests that RDTs will detect the vast majority of the P. falciparum infections. Nevertheless, active surveillance for changing deletion frequencies is required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Lecturer 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 27 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 29 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#14,366,228
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,990
of 5,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,789
of 325,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#113
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 325,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.