↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of glucose-6 phosphate dehydrogenase status by fluorescent spot test and rapid diagnostic test in Lao PDR and Cambodia

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Comparison of glucose-6 phosphate dehydrogenase status by fluorescent spot test and rapid diagnostic test in Lao PDR and Cambodia
Published in
Malaria Journal, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2390-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gisela Henriques, Koukeo Phommasone, Rupam Tripura, Thomas J. Peto, Shristi Raut, Coco Snethlage, Im Sambo, Nou Sanann, Chea Nguon, Bipin Adhikari, Tiengkham Pongvongsa, Mallika Imwong, Lorenz von Seidlein, Nicholas P. Day, Nicholas J. White, Arjen M. Dondorp, Paul Newton, Benedikt Ley, Mayfong Mayxay

Abstract

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is the most common enzymopathy worldwide. Primaquine is the only licensed drug that effectively removes Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites from the human host and prevents relapse. While well tolerated by most recipients, primaquine can cause haemolysis in G6PD deficient individuals and is, therefore, underused. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) could permit ascertainment of G6PD status outside of laboratory settings and hence safe treatment in remote areas. The performance of the fluorescent spot test (Trinity, Ireland; FST) and a G6PD RDT (Carestart, USA) against spectrophotometry were assessed. Participants were enrolled during cross-sectional surveys in Laos and by purposive sampling in Cambodia. FST and RDT were performed during village surveys and 3 mL of venous blood was collected for subsequent G6PD measurement by spectrophotometry. A total of 757 participants were enrolled in Laos and 505 in Cambodia. FST and RDT performed best at 30% cut-off activity and performed significantly better in Laos than in Cambodia. When defining intermediate results as G6PD deficient, the FST had a sensitivity of 100% (95%CI 90-100) and specificity of 90% (95%CI 87.7-92.2) in Laos and sensitivity of 98% (94.1-99.6) and specificity of 71% (95%CI 66-76) in Cambodia (p < 0.001). The RDT had sensitivity and specificity of 100% (95%CI 90-100) and 99% (95%CI 97-99) in Laos and sensitivity and specificity of 91% (86-96) and 93% (90-95) in Cambodia (p < 0.001). The RDT performed significantly better (all p < 0.05) than the FST when intermediate FST results were defined as G6PD deficient. The interpretation of RDT results requires some training but is a good alternative to the FST. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01872702; 06/27/2013; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01872702.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 19 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 24 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#16,159,916
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,341
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,504
of 334,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#82
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 334,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.