↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of two different combined test strips with fluorescent microspheres or colored microspheres as tracers for rotavirus and adenovirus detection

Overview of attention for article published in Virology Journal, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Comparison of two different combined test strips with fluorescent microspheres or colored microspheres as tracers for rotavirus and adenovirus detection
Published in
Virology Journal, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12985-018-0951-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Na Jiang, Lei Shi, Jieping Lin, Lifang Zhang, Yanxia Peng, Huiying Sheng, Ping Wu, Qingjun Pan

Abstract

Rotavirus (RV) and enteric adenovirus (AdV) mainly cause infantile infectious gastroenteritis. Several separate test methods for the detection of RV or AdV are currently available, but few tests are able to simultaneously detect both RV and AdV viruses, especially in primary medical institutions. The present study was mainly designed to compare the performance of two combined test strips for the detection of RV and AdV: a rotavirus-adenovirus strip with fluorescent microspheres for tracers (FMT); and the CerTest rotavirus-adenovirus blister strip with colored microspheres for tracers (CMT). To test the strips cultures of RV, AdV and from other enteric pathogens were used, in addition to 350 stool specimens from 45 symptomatic patients with gastrointestinal infections. Detection thresholds for RV and AdV cultures using serial dilutions showed that the sensitivity of FMT was significantly higher than that of CMT (both P < 0.05). Specificity evaluation demonstrated that with culture mixtures of Coxsackie (A16), ECHO (type30), and entero- (EV71) viruses there was no detection of cross reaction using the two test strips, i.e., all the results were negative. With regard to the detection of RV in 350 clinical specimens, the total coincidence rate was 92.9%, the positive coincidence rate was 98.2%, and the negative coincidence rate was 90.8%. With regard to AdV detection, the total coincidence rate was 95.4%, the positive coincidence rate was 95.2%, and the negative coincidence rate was 95.5%. FMT performed better than CMT with regard to the combined detection of RV and AdV.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 31%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 3 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Chemical Engineering 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 31%
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 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,590,133
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#2,455
of 3,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#259,332
of 333,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#45
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 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 3,061 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 333,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.