↓ Skip to main content

Extending the utility of the WHO recommended assay for direct detection of enteroviruses from clinical specimen for resolving poliovirus co-infection

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 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
Extending the utility of the WHO recommended assay for direct detection of enteroviruses from clinical specimen for resolving poliovirus co-infection
Published in
BMC Research Notes, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3155-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Temitope Oluwasegun Cephas Faleye, Moses Olubusuyi Adewumi, Naomi Princess Ozegbe, Oluwaseun Elijah Ogunsakin, Grace Ariyo, Faith Wuraola Adeshina, Oluwaseun Sarah Ogunga, Similoluwa Deborah Oluwadare, Johnson Adekunle Adeniji

Abstract

In a polio-free world there might be reduced funding for poliovirus surveillance. There is therefore the need to ensure that enterovirologist globally, especially those outside the global polio laboratory network, can participate in poliovirus surveillance without neglecting their enterovirus type of interest. To accomplish this, assays are needed that allow such active participation. In this study we describes a sensitive and specific utility extension of the recently recommended WHO RT-snPCR assay that enables independent detection of the three poliovirus types especially in cases of co-infection. More importantly, it piggy-backs on the first round PCR product of the WHO recommended assay and consequently ensures that enterovirologists interested in nonpolio enteroviruses can continue their investigations, and contribute significantly and specifically to poliovirus surveillance, by using the excess of their first round PCR product.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 33%
Unknown 2 67%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 1 33%
Unknown 2 67%
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 14 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,578,269
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,702
of 4,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,429
of 441,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#55
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 441,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.