↓ Skip to main content

Highly Sensitive Detection of Malaria Parasitemia in a Malaria-Endemic Setting: Performance of a New Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Kit in a Remote Clinic in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Infectious Diseases, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
238 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
296 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Highly Sensitive Detection of Malaria Parasitemia in a Malaria-Endemic Setting: Performance of a New Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Kit in a Remote Clinic in Uganda
Published in
Journal of Infectious Diseases, April 2013
DOI 10.1093/infdis/jit184
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heidi Hopkins, Iveth J. González, Spencer D. Polley, Patrick Angutoko, John Ategeka, Caroline Asiimwe, Bosco Agaba, Daniel J. Kyabayinze, Colin J. Sutherland, Mark D. Perkins, David Bell

Abstract

Current malaria diagnostic tests, including microscopy and antigen-detecting rapid tests, cannot reliably detect low-density infections. Molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are highly sensitive but remain too complex for field deployment. A new commercial molecular assay based on loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) was assessed for field use.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 296 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Burkina Faso 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 288 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 62 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 19%
Student > Master 54 18%
Student > Bachelor 21 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 5%
Other 44 15%
Unknown 43 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 71 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 56 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 36 12%
Engineering 20 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 18 6%
Other 40 14%
Unknown 55 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 04 January 2021.
All research outputs
#989,073
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#756
of 14,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,279
of 204,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#5
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 204,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.