↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review and meta-analysis: rapid diagnostic tests versus placental histology, microscopy and PCR for malaria in pregnant women

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
277 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
Systematic review and meta-analysis: rapid diagnostic tests versus placental histology, microscopy and PCR for malaria in pregnant women
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-10-321
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johanna H Kattenberg, Eleanor A Ochodo, Kimberly R Boer, Henk DFH Schallig, Petra F Mens, Mariska MG Leeflang

Abstract

During pregnancy, malaria infection with Plasmodium falciparum or Plasmodium vivax is related to adverse maternal health and poor birth outcomes. Diagnosis of malaria, during pregnancy, is complicated by the absence or low parasite densities in peripheral blood. Diagnostic methods, other than microscopy, are needed for detection of placental malaria. Therefore, the diagnostic accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), detecting antigen, and molecular techniques (PCR), detecting DNA, for the diagnosis of Plasmodium infections in pregnancy was systematically reviewed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Mozambique 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Burkina Faso 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 266 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 19%
Student > Master 48 17%
Researcher 37 13%
Student > Bachelor 34 12%
Student > Postgraduate 23 8%
Other 56 20%
Unknown 26 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 61 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 4%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 40 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 February 2016.
All research outputs
#944,202
of 5,037,615 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#379
of 1,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,816
of 72,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#11
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,037,615 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,999 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
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 72,367 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.