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 |
Multicenter evaluation of a lateral-flow device test for diagnosing invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in ICU patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-0905-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susanne Eigl, Juergen Prattes, Michaela Lackner, Birgit Willinger, Birgit Spiess, Mark Reinwald, Brigitte Selitsch, Michael Meilinger, Peter Neumeister, Frederike Reischies, Albert Wölfler, Reinhard B Raggam, Holger Flick, Stephan Eschertzhuber, Robert Krause, Dieter Buchheidt, Christopher R Thornton, Cornelia Lass-Flörl, Martin Hoenigl |
| Abstract |
The incidence of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is increasing and early diagnosis of the disease and treatment with antifungal drugs is critical for patient survival. Serum biomarker tests for IPA typically give false negative results in non-neutropenic patients and galactomannan detection, the preffered diagnostic test for IPA using bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), is often not readily available. Novel approaches to IPA detection in ICU patients are needed. In this multicenter study we evaluate the performance of an Aspergillus lateral-flow device (LFD) test for BAL IPA detection in critically ill patients. 149 BAL samples from 133 ICU patients were included in this semi-prospective study. Participating centers were the Medical University Hospitals of Graz, Vienna and Innsbruck in Austria and the University Hospital of Mannheim, Germany. Fungal infections were classified according to modified EORTC/MSG criteria. Two patients (four BALs) had proven IPA, 14 patients (16 BALs) had probable IPA, 20 patients (21 BALs) possible IPA and 97 patients (108 BALs) did not fulfill IPA criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and diagnostic odds ratio for diagnosing proven and probable IPA using LFD tests of BAL were 80%, 81%, 96%, 44% and 17.6 respectively. Fungal BAL culture exhibited a sensitivity of 50% with a specificity of 85%. LFD tests of BAL showed promising results for IPA diagnosis in ICU patients. Furthermore, the LFD can be performed easily and provides rapid results. Therefore, it may be a reliable alternative for IPA diagnosis in ICU patients if GM results are not available rapidly. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02058316 . Registered 20 January 2014. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 24 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,264,174
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,019
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,516
of 395,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#352
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 395,408 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.