↓ Skip to main content

Plasmodium vivax molecular diagnostics in community surveys: pitfalls and solutions

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Plasmodium vivax molecular diagnostics in community surveys: pitfalls and solutions
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2201-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Gruenberg, Clara Antunes Moniz, Natalie Ellen Hofmann, Rahel Wampfler, Cristian Koepfli, Ivo Mueller, Wuelton Marcelo Monteiro, Marcus Lacerda, Gisely Cardoso de Melo, Andrea Kuehn, Andre M. Siqueira, Ingrid Felger

Abstract

A distinctive feature of Plasmodium vivax infections is the overall low parasite density in peripheral blood. Thus, identifying asymptomatic infected individuals in endemic communities requires diagnostic tests with high sensitivity. The detection limits of molecular diagnostic tests are primarily defined by the volume of blood analysed and by the copy number of the amplified molecular marker serving as the template for amplification. By using mitochondrial DNA as the multi-copy template, the detection limit can be improved more than tenfold, compared to standard 18S rRNA targets, thereby allowing detection of lower parasite densities. In a very low transmission area in Brazil, application of a mitochondrial DNA-based assay increased prevalence from 4.9 to 6.5%. The usefulness of molecular tests in malaria epidemiological studies is widely recognized, especially when precise prevalence rates are desired. Of concern, however, is the challenge of demonstrating test accuracy and quality control for samples with very low parasite densities. In this case, chance effects in template distribution around the detection limit constrain reproducibility. Rigorous assessment of false positive and false negative test results is, therefore, required to prevent over- or under-estimation of parasite prevalence in epidemiological studies or when monitoring interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 24 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 32 34%
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 18 January 2019.
All research outputs
#15,357,137
of 25,663,438 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,685
of 5,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,419
of 451,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#72
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,663,438 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 451,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.