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 |
Evaluating HBsAg rapid test performance for different biological samples from low and high infection rate settings & populations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-015-1249-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helena Medina Cruz, Leticia de Paula Scalioni, Vanessa Salete de Paula, Elisangela Ferreira da Silva, Kycia Maria Rodrigues do Ó, Flavio Augusto Pádua Milagres, Marcelo Santos Cruz, Francisco Inácio Bastos, Priscila Pollo-Flores, Erotildes Leal, Ana Rita Coimbra Motta-Castro, José Henrique Pilotto, Lia Laura Lewis-Ximenez, Elisabeth Lampe, Livia Melo Villar |
| Abstract |
Rapid tests (RTs) might have several advantages over standard laboratory procedures, increasing access to diagnosis, especially among vulnerable populations and/or those living in remote areas. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of RTs for the detection of hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg) in samples from different populations/settings. Three RTs for HBsAg detection (Vikia® HBsAg, HBsAg Teste Rápido®, and Imuno-Rápido HBsAg®) and different biological specimens (serum, whole blood, and saliva) were evaluated. Analyses comprised a reference panel and samples from field studies targeting suspected cases of hepatitis B virus (HBV) (G I), individuals living in deprived areas (G II), and highly vulnerable individuals (G III). Enzyme immunoassay (EIA) was defined as the gold standard in this study. Reproducibility, repeatability, and cross-reactivity with other infectious agents such as dengue, immunodeficiency (HIV), and hepatitis C (HCV) viruses and T. pallidum were determined. For the reference panel, the sensitivity and specificity of all HBsAg RTs were higher than 93.00 %. G I presented the highest kappa values for all rapid assays using sera samples. When using serum, the sensitivity values were higher than 93.40 for G I, 60.00 % for G II and 66.77 % for G III, and the specificity values were higher than 99.50 for GI, 97.20 for G II and 99.10 % for G III for all tests. For whole blood samples & the Vikia® HBsAg assay, the best performance was achieved for GIII (k = 79.75 %). For saliva samples, the Imuno-Rápido HBsAg® assay showed the highest concordance values with EIA for G I (40.68 %) and G II (32.20 %). The reproducibility and repeatability of all RTs for serum and saliva were excellent, and the concordance between HBsAg EIAs and RTs using samples reactive with other infectious agents varied from 70.10 % to 100.00 %. The overall performance of RTs for HBsAg in serum was high/moderately high for all groups, thereby promoting increased access to HBV diagnosis among vulnerable populations as well as samples from individuals in emergency settings or remote areas. Rapid tests for HBsAg using whole blood could be used in prevalence studies, though these assays should not be used for saliva samples. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 20% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 24 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 25 | 30% |
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 30 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,431,664
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,606
of 7,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,619
of 387,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#110
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 387,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.