↓ Skip to main content

Reducing malaria misdiagnosis: the importance of correctly interpreting Paracheck Pf®"faint test bands" in a low transmission area of Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Reducing malaria misdiagnosis: the importance of correctly interpreting Paracheck Pf®"faint test bands" in a low transmission area of Tanzania
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-11-308
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa K Allen, Jennifer M Hatfield, Giselle DeVetten, Jeremy C Ho, Mange Manyama

Abstract

Although malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been extensively evaluated since their introduction in the early 1990's, sensitivity and specificity vary widely limiting successful integration into clinical practice. This paper reviews specific issues surrounding RDT use in field settings and presents results of research investigating how to interpret "faint test bands" on ParaCheck Pf® in areas of low transmission in order to reduce malaria misdiagnosis.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Kenya 1 2%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 58 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 30%
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 2 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 22%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 2 3%

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 03 November 2011.
All research outputs
#7,762,460
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,568
of 4,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,706
of 104,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#129
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,592 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 104,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.