↓ Skip to main content

A Birth-cohort testing intervention identified hepatitis c virus infection among patients with few identified risks: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, December 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 (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
A Birth-cohort testing intervention identified hepatitis c virus infection among patients with few identified risks: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1283-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

William N. Southern, Brianna Norton, Meredith Steinman, Joseph DeLuca, Mari-Lynn Drainoni, Bryce D. Smith, Alain H. Litwin

Abstract

International guidelines and U.S. guidelines prior to 2012 only recommended testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among patients at risk, but adherence to guidelines is poor, and the majority of those infected remain undiagnosed. A strategy to perform one-time testing of all patients born during 1945-1965, birth cohort testing, may diagnose HCV infection among patients whose risk remains unknown. We sought to determine if a birth-cohort testing intervention for HCV antibody positivity helped identify patients with fewer documented risk factors or medical indications than a pre-intervention, risk-based testing strategy. We used a cross-sectional design with retrospective electronic medical record review to examine patients identified with HCV antibody positivity (Ab+) during a pre-intervention (risk-based) phase, the standard of care at the time, vs. a birth-cohort testing intervention phase. We compared demographic and clinical characteristics and HCV risk-associated factors among patients whose HCV Ab + was identified during the pre-intervention (risk-based testing) vs. post birth-cohort intervention phases. Study subjects were patients identified as HCV-Ab + in the baseline (risk-based) and birth-cohort testing phases of the Hepatitis C Assessment and Testing (HepCAT) Project. Compared to the risk-based phase, patients newly diagnosed with HCV Ab + after the birth-cohort intervention were significantly less likely to have a history of any substance abuse (30.5 % vs. 49.5 %, p = 0.02), elevated alanine transaminase levels of > 40 U/L (22.0 % vs. 46.7 %, p = 0.002), or the composite any risk-associated factor (55.9 % vs. 79.0 %, p = 0.002). Birth-cohort testing is an useful strategy for identifying previously undiagnosed HCV Ab + because it does not require providers ask risk-based questions, or patients to disclose risk behaviors, and appears to identify HCV Ab + in patients who would not have been identified using a risk-based testing strategy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 17 40%
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 15 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,092,533
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,881
of 8,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,386
of 396,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#66
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 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 8,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
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 396,916 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 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 51% of its contemporaries.