↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic tools in childhood malaria

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 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
Diagnostic tools in childhood malaria
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13071-018-2617-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amirah Amir, Fei-Wen Cheong, Jeremy R. De Silva, Yee-Ling Lau

Abstract

Every year, millions of people are burdened with malaria. An estimated 429,000 casualties were reported in 2015, with the majority made up of children under five years old. Early and accurate diagnosis of malaria is of paramount importance to ensure appropriate administration of treatment. This minimizes the risk of parasite resistance development, reduces drug wastage and unnecessary adverse reaction to antimalarial drugs. Malaria diagnostic tools have expanded beyond the conventional microscopic examination of Giemsa-stained blood films. Contemporary and innovative techniques have emerged, mainly the rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and other molecular diagnostic methods such as PCR, qPCR and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP). Even microscopic diagnosis has gone through a paradigm shift with the development of new techniques such as the quantitative buffy coat (QBC) method and the Partec rapid malaria test. This review explores the different diagnostic tools available for childhood malaria, each with their characteristic strengths and limitations. These tools play an important role in making an accurate malaria diagnosis to ensure that the use of anti-malaria are rationalized and that presumptive diagnosis would only be a thing of the past.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 192 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 15%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 4%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 79 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Engineering 8 4%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 90 47%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 April 2019.
All research outputs
#15,489,831
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#3,413
of 5,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,985
of 441,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#96
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 441,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.