↓ Skip to main content

Surmised total leucocyte counts miscalculate the parasite index of Plasmodium vivax malaria patients of tertiary and primary care settings in South-Western India

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Surmised total leucocyte counts miscalculate the parasite index of Plasmodium vivax malaria patients of tertiary and primary care settings in South-Western India
Published in
Malaria Journal, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0669-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kumar Rishikesh, Sathish Kitta Madivala, Prashantha Prabhu, Asha Kamath, Herikudru Ashok, Sudha Vidyasagar, Ananthakrishna Barkur Shastry, Kavitha Saravu

Abstract

For the calculation of parasite index (PI) by microscopy method, an assumed total leucocyte count (TLC) of 8,000/μL is used conventionally. However, due to obvious variation in the population and individual TLCs, use of 8,000/μL may result in either over/underestimation of the PI. This study was aimed at ascertaining the utility of 8,000/μL TLC, as well as other assumed TLCs, with respect to measured TLC for the calculation of PI. A tertiary care hospital and five primary health centres were the base for the prospective study conducted among microscopically proven, symptomatic Plasmodium vivax mono-infection patients aged ≥18 years. PIs calculated by assumed TLCs ranging from 4,000-11,000/μL were compared with those calculated by measured TLCs. Geometric mean with 95% confidence interval, Bland-Altman plot and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for statistical analysis. A total of 284 P. vivax mono-infection patients, including 156 from a tertiary care hospital and 128 from five primary health centres, were recruited in the study. Assumed TLCs below 5,000 cell/μL and above 5,500 cell/μL in tertiary care setting resulted in significant (p <0.05) underestimation and overestimation, respectively. However, in primary health centres, it was an assumed TLC of 5,000 cell/μL, below and above which there was significant (p <0.05) underestimation and overestimation observed, respectively. Assumed TLC of 8,000/μL is not suitable for the calculation of PI. Either actual TLC of the patient should be measured or a representative TLC should be derived for the population under investigation for any study requiring calculated PI by microscopy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 19%
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 44%
Mathematics 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 2 13%

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 20 April 2015.
All research outputs
#16,171,446
of 20,110,162 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,643
of 5,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,458
of 240,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,110,162 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 5,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. 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 240,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them