↓ Skip to main content

External quality assessment for acid fast bacilli smear microscopy in eastern part of Ethiopia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
External quality assessment for acid fast bacilli smear microscopy in eastern part of Ethiopia
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1478-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Desalegn Admassu Ayana, Zelalem Teklemariam Kidanemariam, Habtamu Mitiku Tesfaye, Fitsum Weldegebreal Milashu

Abstract

External quality assessment (EQA) of sputum smear microscopy is essential and indispensable component of any tuberculosis program. This study assessed the EQA of acid fast bacilli (AFB) smear microscopy through onsite evaluation, blinded rechecking and panel test. A one year study was conducted on eight health institution laboratories from December 2011 to December 2012. Onsite evaluation, blinded rechecking and panel tests were used to collect data. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 16. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and proportions of false readings were calculated. The level of agreement was measured using Kappa (κ) value. Problems observed during onsite evaluation include shortages of materials, disinfectant, and poor storage and working condition. A total of 578 slides were collected for blinded rechecking, of which 102 (17.6 %) were reported as positive by peripheral laboratories. The panel test revealed an overall error of 17 (25.25 %) of which 14 (17.5 %) were minor errors [low false negative 6 (7.5 %) and low false positive 8 (10 %)], and 3 (3.75 %) were major errors (high false positive). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) of the peripheral laboratories were 83.5, 97.8, 91.7, and 95.7, respectively. The false readings at the peripheral laboratories were 32 (5.5 %). Agreement on reading the slides was observed on 546 (94.5 %) slides (K = 0.84, SE = 0.054). Lack of reagents, supplies, favorable working environment and AFB related technical problems were identified in the peripheral laboratories. High false negative error was found to be the predominant major error. A continuous and strong EQA scheme should be implemented to avoid reporting errors and produce quality sputum results.

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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Librarian 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 16 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 18 47%
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 02 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,335,423
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,563
of 4,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,906
of 277,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#144
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 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 4,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 277,574 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 187 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.