↓ Skip to main content

Galactomannan antigen detection using bronchial wash and bronchoalveolar lavage in patients with hematologic malignancies

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Galactomannan antigen detection using bronchial wash and bronchoalveolar lavage in patients with hematologic malignancies
Published in
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12941-015-0111-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mahnaz Taremi, Michael E. Kleinberg, Elizabeth W. Wang, Bruce L. Gilliam, Patrick A. Ryscavage

Abstract

The diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis is challenging. It is unclear whether galactomannan (GM) results from bronchial wash (BW) and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples differ in a clinically meaningful way. Ninety-six paired (BAL and BW) samples from 85 patients were included. The average age was 53 years, 61 % of the patients were male, and 74.1 % had an underlying diagnosis of AML/MDS (ALL 7.1 %, other hematologic malignancy 18.8 %). 57 (67.1 %) patients were neutropenic, and 56 (65.9 %) patients were receiving mold-active drugs at least 48 h prior to bronchoscopy. The overall agreement between GM detection from BW and BAL was 63.5 % (K = 0.152; 95 % CI 0.008-0.311) and 73 % (K = 0.149; 95 % CI 0.048-0.348) at cut off ≥0.5 and ≥1.0, respectively. Among 43 positive samples, using a GM cut-off of 0.5, 39 (90.5 %) were positive in BW samples whereas 12 (29.3 %) were positive in BAL samples. The median level of GM in BW (0.28) samples was significantly higher than in BAL (0.20) samples among 53 samples with negative results (P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the median GM values between the BW and BAL samples with positive results (P = 0.08). There was no significant difference in GM detection between samples with positive and negative results with regard to antifungal, beta lactam antibacterial treatment or neutropenia (60.5 vs 56.6 %; 53.9 vs 46 %; 65.1 vs 54.7 %, respectively). This retrospective study examining two collection techniques suggests that BW may have higher diagnostic yield compared to bronchoalveolar lavage for GM detection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Researcher 2 22%
Professor 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 March 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#590
of 678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,026
of 292,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 292,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.