↓ Skip to main content

Optimising diagnosis of viraemic hepatitis C infection: the development of a target product profile

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2017
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Optimising diagnosis of viraemic hepatitis C infection: the development of a target product profile
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2770-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Ivanova Reipold, Philippa Easterbrook, Alessandra Trianni, Nivedha Panneer, Douglas Krakower, Stefano Ongarello, Teri Roberts, Veronica Miller, Claudia Denkinger

Abstract

The current low access to virological testing to confirm chronic viraemic HCV infection in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is limiting the rollout of hepatitis C (HCV) care. Existing tests are complex, costly and require sophisticated laboratory infrastructure. Diagnostic manufacturers need guidance on the optimal characteristics a virological test needs to have to ensure the greatest impact on HCV diagnosis and treatment in LMIC. Our objective was to develop a target product profile (TPP) for diagnosis of HCV viraemia using a global stakeholder consensus-based approach. Based on the standardised process established to develop consensus-based TPPs, we followed five key steps. (i) Identifying key potential global stakeholders for consultation and input into the TPP development process. (ii) Informal priority-setting exercise with key experts to identify the needs that should be the highest priority for the TPP development; (iii) Defining the key TPP domains (scope, performance and operational characteristics and price). (iv) Delphi-like process with larger group of key stakeholder to facilitate feedback on the key TPP criteria and consensus building based on pre-defined consensus criteria. (v) A final consensus-gathering meeting for discussions around disputed criteria. A complementary values and preferences survey helped to assess trade-offs between different key characteristics. The following key attributes for the TPP for a test to confirm HCV viraemic infection were identified: The scope defined is for both HCV detection as well as confirmation of cure. The timeline of development for tests envisioned in the TPP is 5 years. The test should be developed for use by health-care workers or laboratory technicians with limited training in countries with a medium to high prevalence of HCV (1.5-3.5% and >3.5%) and in high-risk populations in low prevalence settings (<1.5%). A clinical sensitivity at a minimum of 90% is considered sufficient (analytical sensitivity of the equivalent of 3000 IU/ml), particularly if the test increases access to testing through an affordable price, increase ease-of-use and feasibility on capillary blood. Polyvalency would be optimal (i.e. ability to test for HIV and others). The only characteristic that full agreement could not be achieved on was the price for a virological test. Discussants felt that to reach the optimal target price substantial trade-offs had to be made (e.g. in regards to sensitivity and integration). The TPP and V&P survey results define the need for an easy-to-use, low cost test to increase access to diagnosis and linkage to care in LMIC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Master 11 13%
Other 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Professor 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 26 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Engineering 5 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 33 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 25 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,529,232
of 25,107,281 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#763
of 8,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,816
of 335,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#12
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,107,281 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 335,783 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 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 91% of its contemporaries.