| Title |
The accuracy of methods for urate crystal detection in synovial fluid and the effect of sample handling: A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-012-2107-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. W. Graf, R. Buchbinder, J. Zochling, S. L. Whittle |
| Abstract |
This study aims to compare different methods of monosodium urate crystal (MSU) detection in synovial fluid (SF) and the effect of sample storage and handling on crystal detection. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism conference abstracts of 2010 and 2011. Studies that compared a method for detecting MSU crystals in SF with polarised light microscopy (PLM) or compared various SF storage and handling factors with the detection of MSU crystals as an outcome were included. Twelve studies out of 247 identified references were included in the review. Seven studies compared different methods of MSU crystal detection in SF with PLM. Due to study heterogeneity, methodological limitations and risk of bias, no firm conclusions could be drawn from the available data. Five studies examining SF storage and handling factors were identified. A reduction in MSU crystal concentration was observed over time at room temperature that was not seen in refrigerated samples. The use of anticoagulation as a storage medium provided no benefit. Dried cytospin preparations appeared to be a suitable medium for long-term storage and delayed crystal analysis for at least 12 months. The existing data do not provide a compelling argument for the replacement of PLM as the current standard. SF sample storage and handling have an effect on MSU crystals and may impact on the reliability of analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 67% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 19% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 11% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
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 23 October 2018.
All research outputs
#14,268,548
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#1,806
of 3,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,668
of 183,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#15
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 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 3,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 183,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.