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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Prevalence of human parvovirus B19 in Chinese plasma pools for manufacturing plasma derivatives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Virology Journal, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12985-015-0396-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Junting Jia, Yuyuan Ma, Xiong Zhao, Yi Guo, Chaoji Huangfu, Chi Fang, Rui Fan, Maomin Lv, Huiqiong Yin, Jingang Zhang |
| Abstract |
Human parvovirus B19 (B19V) is a frequent contaminant of blood and plasma-derived medicinal products. To ensure the quality and safety of plasma-derived products, European regulations, Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association (PPTA) standard and FDA guidelines require testing of manufacturing plasma for parvovirus B19 DNA to limit the load of this virus. In China, however, there have been no related documentation and technical guiding principles for monitoring B19V, moreover, an adequate level of information on the prevalence of B19V in Chinese plasma donations is not available. By using an in-house quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay adapted for all three genotypes of B19V, 235 source plasma pools from three regional different Chinese manufacturers of blood products were screened and quantified. Results showed that 71.91 % (169/235) of plasma pools were contaminated by B19V, with the concentrations of 5.18 × 10(2)-1.05 × 10(9) IU/mL. Approximately 31.95 % of the DNA-positive plasma pools were only moderately contaminated (<10(4) IU/mL), while 68.05 % contained >10(4) IU/mL. The high level of B19V in plasma pools could present a great risk in plasma derivatives. Therefore, the implementation of B19V NAT (Nucleic Acid Testing) assays capable of detecting all B19V genotypes and discard donations with high titer B19V DNA for Chinese blood products manufacturers seems to be necessary. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 13% |
| Researcher | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 25% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
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 06 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,348,067
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#1,960
of 3,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,898
of 277,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#41
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 277,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.