↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the performances of six commercial kits designed for dengue NS1 and anti-dengue IgM, IgG and IgA detection in urine and saliva clinical specimens

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Evaluation of the performances of six commercial kits designed for dengue NS1 and anti-dengue IgM, IgG and IgA detection in urine and saliva clinical specimens
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1551-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Claire Andries, Veasna Duong, Sivuth Ong, Sopheaktra Ros, Anavaj Sakuntabhai, Paul Horwood, Philippe Dussart, Philippe Buchy

Abstract

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been commercialized in order to help physicians in dengue diagnosis. Until recently, only blood samples were used for those tests but it has been shown in several studies that urine and saliva can also be employed for dengue diagnosis. RDTs for the detection of NS1 antigen and anti-dengue IgG, IgM and IgA in urine and saliva specimens have thus been developed by Standard Diagnostics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances these new commercial assays. Two panels of clinical specimens were used: one for the evaluation of the NS1-detection devices and the second for the evaluation of the antibody-detection kits. Each panel consisted of urine and saliva specimens collected sequentially from 86 patients with a confirmed dengue infection. A total of 291 saliva and 440 urine samples were included in the NS1-evaluation panel and 530 saliva and 528 urine specimens constituted the antibody-evaluation panel. All samples were tested in parallel by in-house ELISAs and by the commercial RDTs. The RDTs demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 15.5 %/27.9 %/10.7 % for NS1/IgG/IgA detection in urine samples and 20.4 %/ 34.8 %/11 %/6.2 % for NS1/IgG/IgM/IgA detection in saliva samples. Compared to the in-house NS1 ELISA, the results obtained with the NS1 RDT demonstrated a good correlation with urine samples (kappa coefficient: 0.88) but not with saliva specimens (kappa coefficient: 0.28). RDTs designed for antibody detection in saliva and urine were extremely specific (100 %), but less sensitive than the in-house ELISAs (i.e., reduction of the overall sensitivity by 12.2 % for the RDT designed for IgG detection in urine and by 23.7 % for the RDT detecting anti-DENV IgM in saliva). IgM were not detected in urine, either by RDT or ELISA. Although the RDTs evaluated here offer an apparently attractive approach for dengue diagnosis, this study suggests that these new commercial kits would require further improvement to increase the sensitivity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Student > Bachelor 16 17%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 11%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 21 22%

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 01 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,232,905
of 21,200,018 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,471
of 7,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,420
of 281,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,200,018 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. 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 281,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them