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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Diagnostic tools of caprine and ovine anaplasmosis: a direct comparative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Veterinary Research, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12917-018-1489-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
I. I. Shabana, N. M. Alhadlag, H. Zaraket |
| Abstract |
The diagnosis of anaplasmosis is rather conflicting with other haemoprotozoans. Hence, the study aimed to compare and evaluate the efficiency of competitive ELISA (cELISA), indirect fluorescence antibody (IFA), and Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for precise diagnosis of Anaplasma spp. and to assess their concordance with microscopic examination (ME). A total of 312 blood samples (189 sheep and 123 goats) were examined for Anaplasma infection during a 1 year period. Giemsa-stained blood smears were examined under the microscope. IFA and cELISA were used for the detection of Anaplasma spp. antibodies. PCR was used as a standard of truth and for the identification of Anaplasma species. Using cELISA assay, 47.4% (148) were positive (93 sheep and 55 goats) with a sensitivity and specificity of 91.9, and 86.9%, respectively. Using IFA, it was found that 57.4% (179)were positive (113 sheep and 66 goats) with a sensitivity and specificity of 100, and 93.3%, respectively. PCR assay identified A. ovis in 49 (25.3%) sheep and 30 (15.5%) goats, and A. phagocytophilumin 74 (38.1%) sheep and 41 (20.8%) goats. High sensitivity and specificity values of IFA and ELISA tests compared to microscopic examination strongly support their utility in the diagnosis of Anaplasma infection. PCR was a more specific diagnostic tool that allows to discriminate between Anaplasma subspecies, which makes it the method of choice for anaplasmosis diagnosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 15 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 18 | 40% |
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 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,616,159
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#1,732
of 3,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,629
of 332,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#42
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,087 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 332,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.