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 |
Smear plus Detect-TB for a sensitive diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis in an incarcerated population
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-014-0678-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karen Barros Schmid, Luciene Scherer, Regina Bones Barcellos, Daniele Kuhleis, Isaías Valente Prestes, Ricardo Ewbank Steffen, Elis Regina Dalla Costa, Maria Lucia Rosa Rossetti |
| Abstract |
BackgroundPrison conditions can favor the spread of tuberculosis (TB). This study aimed to evaluate in a Brazilian prison: the performance and accuracy of smear, culture and Detect-TB; performance of smear plus culture and smear plus Detect-TB, according to different TB prevalence rates; and the cost-effectiveness of these procedures for pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) diagnosis.MethodsThis paper describes a cost-effectiveness study. A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the costs and cost-effectiveness of five routine diagnostic procedures for diagnosis of PTB using sputum specimens: a) Smear alone, b) Culture alone, c) Detect-TB alone, d) Smear plus culture and e) Smear plus Detect-TB. The cost-effectiveness ratio of costs were evaluated per correctly diagnosed TB case and all procedures costs were attributed based on the procedure costs adopted by the Brazilian Public Health System.ResultsA total of 294 spontaneous sputum specimens from patients suspected of having TB were analyzed. The sensibility and specificity were calculated to be 47% and 100% for smear; 93% and 100%, for culture; 74% and 95%, for Detect-TB; 96% and 100%, for smear plus culture; and 86% and 95%, for smear plus Detect-TB. The negative and positive predictive values for smear plus Detect-TB, according to different TB prevalence rates, ranged from 83 to 99% and 48 to 96%, respectively. In a cost-effectiveness analysis, smear was both less costly and less effective than the other strategies. Culture and smear plus culture were more effective but more costly than the other strategies. Smear plus Detect-TB was the most cost-effective method.ConclusionsThe Detect-TB evinced to be sensitive and effective for the PTB diagnosis when applied with smear microscopy. Diagnostic methods should be improved to increase TB case detection. To support rational decisions about the implementation of such techniques, cost-effectiveness studies are essential, including in prisons, which are known for health care assessment problems. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 23% |
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 15 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 24 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,386,678
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,592
of 7,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,493
of 354,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#129
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 354,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.