↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification as a surveillance tool for malaria in reactive case detection moving towards elimination

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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 loop-mediated isothermal amplification as a surveillance tool for malaria in reactive case detection moving towards elimination
Published in
Malaria Journal, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2399-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Munyaradzi Tambo, Joyce R. Auala, Hugh J. Sturrock, Immo Kleinschmidt, Ronnie Bock, Jennifer L. Smith, Roland Gosling, Davis R. Mumbengegwi

Abstract

As malaria transmission decreases, the proportion of infections that are asymptomatic at any given time increases. This poses a challenge for diagnosis as routinely used rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) miss asymptomatic malaria cases with low parasite densities due to poor sensitivity. Yet, asymptomatic infections can contribute to onward transmission of malaria and therefore act as infectious reservoirs and perpetuate malaria transmission. This study compared the performance of RDTs to loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) in the diagnosis of malaria during reactive active case detection surveillance. All reported malaria cases in the Engela Health District of Namibia were traced back to their place of residence and persons living within the four closest neighbouring houses to the index case (neighbourhood) were tested for malaria infection with RDTs and dried blood spots (DBS) were collected. LAMP and nested PCR (nPCR) were carried out on all RDTs and DBS. The same procedure was followed in randomly selected control neighbourhoods. Some 3151 individuals were tested by RDT, LAMP and nPCR. Sensitivity of RDTs and LAMP were 9.30 and 95.50%, respectively, and specificities were 99.27 and 99.92%, respectively, compared to nPCR. LAMP carried out on collected RDTs showed a sensitivity and specificity of 95.35 and 99.85% compared to nPCR carried out on DBS. There were 2 RDT samples that were negative by LAMP but the corresponding DBS samples were positive by PCR. The study showed that LAMP had the equivalent performance as nPCR for the identification of Plasmodium falciparum infection. Given its relative simplicity to implement over more complex and time-consuming methods, such as PCR, LAMP is particularly useful in elimination settings where high sensitivity and ease of operation are important.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 21 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Unspecified 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 22 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 April 2019.
All research outputs
#12,808,677
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,987
of 5,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,123
of 326,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#49
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 326,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.