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 |
Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of neutrophil CD64 for neonatal sepsis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Italian Journal of Pediatrics, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13052-016-0268-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jing Shi, Jun Tang, Dapeng Chen |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic performance of nCD64 for neonatal sepsis. Computer retrieval was conducted for the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Springer databases up to March 18, 2015 to select the relevant studies on nCD64 and neonatal sepsis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for diagnostic efficiency of nCD64 were pooled. In addition, the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was also conducted based on the sensitivity and specificity. Seventeen studies including 3478 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.77 (95 % CI: 0.74-0.79), 0.74 (95 % CI: 0.72-0.75), 3.58 (95 % CI: 2.85-4.49), 0.29 (95 % CI: 0.22-0.37) and 15.18 (95 % CI: 9.75-23.62), respectively. In addition, the area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.8666, and no threshold effect was found based on the Spearman correlation analysis (P = 0.616). Besides, subgroup analysis showed higher sensitivity, specificity and AUC in term infants and proven infection group than those in preterm infants and clinical infection group, respectively. The n CD64 expression alone is not a satisfactory marker for diagnosing neonatal sepsis with relatively low sensitivity, specificity, PLR and NLR, in spite of relatively high SROC area. Therefore, the n CD64 expression used in diagnosis of neonatal sepsis should be treated with caution. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Serbia | 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 17% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 30 | 38% |
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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#574
of 1,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,072
of 355,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#11
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 355,758 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.