↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of two immunodiagnostic tests for early rapid diagnosis of leptospirosis in Sri Lanka: a preliminary study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Evaluation of two immunodiagnostic tests for early rapid diagnosis of leptospirosis in Sri Lanka: a preliminary study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1080-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Egwin J. Eugene, Shiroma M. Handunnetti, Shalini A. Wickramasinghe, Thilini L. Kalugalage, Chathuraka Rodrigo, Hasith Wickremesinghe, Nandana Dikmadugoda, Pranitha Somaratne, H Janaka De Silva, Senaka Rajapakse

Abstract

Leptospirosis is often treated based on clinical diagnosis. There is a need for rapid laboratory diagnosis for this condition. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of two rapid IgM based immunodiagnostic assays with the microscopic agglutination test (MAT), in acute leptospirosis infection. MAT, IgM based immunochromatographic test (Leptocheck-WB) and IgM ELISA were performed using acute sera of patients clinically suspected to have leptospirosis (n = 83). Bayesian latent class modeling was used to compare the accuracy of these tests. Percentage positivity for MAT, Leptocheck-WB, and IgM ELISA were 48.1, 55.3, and 45.7 % respectively. Bayesian latent class modeling showed a combined positivity rate of leptospirosis of 44.7 %. The sensitivity of MAT, Leptocheck-WB and IgM ELISA were 91.4, 95 and 81.1 %, and specificity were 86.7, 76.4 and 83.1 %, respectively. Leptocheck-WB has high sensitivity, and, because it is quick and easy to perform, would be a good screening test for acute leptospirosis infection. IgM ELISA has good specificity, and is comparable with MAT; given that it is easier to perform and more widely available than MAT, it would be a more appropriate confirmatory test for use in hospitals with limited access to a specialized laboratory.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Sri Lanka 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 21 26%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 30%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 21 26%
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 11 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,422,065
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,600
of 7,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,419
of 264,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#120
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 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 7,676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 264,425 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 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.