↓ Skip to main content

Variation in dengue virus plaque reduction neutralization testing: systematic review and pooled analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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
Variation in dengue virus plaque reduction neutralization testing: systematic review and pooled analysis
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-12-233
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kaitlin Rainwater-Lovett, Isabel Rodriguez-Barraquer, Derek AT Cummings, Justin Lessler

Abstract

The plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) remains the gold standard for the detection of serologic immune responses to dengue virus (DENV). While the basic concept of the PRNT remains constant, this test has evolved in multiple laboratories, introducing variation in materials and methods. Despite the importance of laboratory-to-laboratory comparability in DENV vaccine development, the effects of differing PRNT techniques on assay results, particularly the use of different dengue strains within a serotype, have not been fully characterized.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Vietnam 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 125 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 17%
Student > Master 23 17%
Other 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 18 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 26 19%
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 24 October 2013.
All research outputs
#17,666,399
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,065
of 7,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,607
of 172,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#62
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,642 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 172,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.