↓ Skip to main content

An assessment of various blood collection and transfer methods used for malaria rapid diagnostic tests

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, November 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
An assessment of various blood collection and transfer methods used for malaria rapid diagnostic tests
Published in
Malaria Journal, November 2007
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-6-149
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Luchavez, Ma Eichelle Lintag, Mary Coll-Black, Fred Baik, David Bell

Abstract

Four blood collection and transfer devices commonly used for malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) were assessed for their consistency, accuracy and ease of use in the hands of laboratory technicians and village health workers. Laboratory technicians and village health workers collected blood from a finger prick using each device in random order, and deposited the blood either on filter paper or into a suitable casette-type RDT. Consistency and accuracy of volume delivered was determined by comparing the measurements of the resulting blood spots/heights with the measurements of laboratory-prepared pipetted standard volumes. The effect of varying blood volumes on RDT sensitivity and ease of use was also observed. There was high variability in blood volume collected by the devices, with the straw and the loop, the most preferred devices, usually transferring volumes greater than intended, while the glass capillary tube and the plastic pipette transferring less volume than intended or none at all. Varying the blood volume delivered to RDTs indicated that this variation is critical to RDT sensitivity only when the transferred volume is very low. None of the blood transfer devices assessed performed consistently well. Adequate training on their use is clearly necessary, with more development efforts for improved designs to be used by remote health workers, in mind.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 53 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Chemistry 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 9 16%
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 16 June 2012.
All research outputs
#7,468,281
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,453
of 5,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,601
of 76,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 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 5,569 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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 76,154 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.