↓ Skip to main content

Voltammetric analysis for fast and inexpensive diagnosis of urinary tract infection: a diagnostic study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Voltammetric analysis for fast and inexpensive diagnosis of urinary tract infection: a diagnostic study
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12967-018-1393-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diana Lelli, Claudio Pedone, Pamela Alemanno, Alessandra Bertini, Claudia Di Gioia, Sara Fazzina, Giorgio Pennazza, Marco Santonico, Simone Grasso, Alessandro Zompanti, Silvia Angeletti, Raffaele Antonelli Incalzi

Abstract

Dipstick test is widely used to support the diagnosis of urinary tract infections (UTI). It is effective in ruling out UTI, but urine culture is needed for diagnosis confirmation. In this study we compared the accuracy of voltammetric analysis (VA) with that of DT to detect UTI (diagnosed using urine culture), and its usefulness as a second-stage test in people with positive DT. 142 patients were enrolled with no exclusion criteria. VA was performed using the BIONOTE device. Partial Least Square Discrimination Analysis was used to predict UTI based on VA data; diagnostic performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively), positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR), accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Mean age was 76.6 years (SD 12.6), 57% were male. VA had a better overall performance respect to DT in detecting UTI with accuracy 81.7% vs 75.9%, specificity 90.8% vs 82.5%, PPV 75% vs 61.4%, positive LR 6.68 vs 3.5, DOR 17.7 vs 7.47; sensibility, NPV and negative LR of the two tests were similar. VA had an accuracy of 82.4% in discriminating bacterial from fungal infections. When added as a second-stage test, VA identified 9 of the 17 false positive patients, with a net specificity of 91.7%, sensitivity 54%, PPV 75% and NPV 81%. VA is a quick and easy method that may be used as a second stage after DT to reduce the number of urine culture and of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions.

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Engineering 3 10%
Chemistry 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 10 34%
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 26 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,489,831
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,258
of 4,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,977
of 441,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#53
of 82 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 4,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 441,125 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 82 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.