↓ Skip to main content

All that is blood is not schistosomiasis: experiences with reagent strip testing for urogenital schistosomiasis with special consideration to very-low prevalence settings

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 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
All that is blood is not schistosomiasis: experiences with reagent strip testing for urogenital schistosomiasis with special consideration to very-low prevalence settings
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13071-015-1165-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefanie J. Krauth, Helena Greter, Katarina Stete, Jean T. Coulibaly, Seïdinan I. Traoré, Bongo N. R. Ngandolo, Louise Y. Achi, Jakob Zinsstag, Eliézer K. N’Goran, Jürg Utzinger

Abstract

Reagent strip testing for microhaematuria has long been used for community diagnosis of Schistosoma haematobium. Sensitivities and specificities are reasonable, and hence, microhaematuria can serve as a proxy for S. haematobium infection. However, assessment of test performance in the context of the underlying S. haematobium prevalence is rare and test parameters other than sensitivity and specificity have been neglected. Data about the association between microhaematuria and urine filtration results from three studies were compared and put into context with findings from a recent Cochrane review. Data were stratified by S. haematobium prevalence to identify prevalence-related differences in test performance. Kappa agreement and regression models were employed to compare data for different S. haematobium prevalence categories. We found a "background" prevalence of microhaematuria (13 %, on average) which does not seem to be associated with schistosomiasis in most settings, irrespective of the prevalence of S. haematobium. This background level of microhaematuria might be due to cases missed with urine filtration, or alternative causes apart from S. haematobium. Especially in very-low prevalence settings, positive results for microhaematuria likely give an inaccurate picture of the extent of S. haematobium, whereas negative results are a sound indicator for the absence of infection. Reagent strip testing for microhaematuria remains a good proxy for urogenital schistosomiasis, but implications of test results and scope of application differ depending on the setting in which reagent strips are employed. In very-low prevalence settings, microhaematuria is an unstable proxy for urogenital schistosomiasis and treatment decision should not be based on reagent strip test results alone. Our findings underscore the need for highly accurate diagnostic tools for settings targeted for elimination of urogenital schistosomiasis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 %
Student > Master 16 24%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 6 9%
Lecturer 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 18 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 19 29%
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 27 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,024,517
of 24,294,766 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,790
of 5,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,363
of 287,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#59
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,294,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 287,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.