↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation du test de diagnostic rapide du paludisme OptiMal-IT® pLDH à la limite de la distribution de Plasmodium falciparum en Mauritanie

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin de la Société de pathologie exotique, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation du test de diagnostic rapide du paludisme OptiMal-IT® pLDH à la limite de la distribution de Plasmodium falciparum en Mauritanie
Published in
Bulletin de la Société de pathologie exotique, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13149-017-0541-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. Ba, A. D. Ahouidi, C. W. Duffy, Y. B. Deh, C. Diedhiou, A. Tandia, M. Y. Diallo, S. Assefa, B. B. Lô, M. B. Elkory, D. J. Conway

Abstract

Performance of the malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) OptiMal-IT® was evaluated in Mauritania where malaria is low and dependent on a short transmission season. Slide microscopy was considered as the reference method of diagnosis. Febrile patients with suspected malaria were recruited from six health facilities, 3 urban and 3 rural, during two periods (December 2011 to February 2012, and August 2012 to March 2013). Overall, 780 patients were sampled, with RDT and thick blood film microscopy results being obtained for 759 of them. Out of 774 slides examined, of which 200 were positive, P. falciparum and P. vivax mono-infections were detected in 63.5% (127) and 29.5% (59), while P. falciparum/P. vivax coinfections were detected in 7% (14). Both species were observed in all study sites, although in significantly different proportions. The proportions of thick blood film and OptiMal-IT® RDT positive individuals was 26.3% and 30.3% respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of OptiMal-IT® RDT were 89% [95% CI, 84.7-93.3] and 91.1% [88.6-93.4]. Positives and negative predictive values were 78.1% [72.2-83.7] and 95.9% [94.1-97.5]. These diagnostic values are similar to those generally reported elsewhere, and support the use of RDTs as the main diagnostic tool for malaria in Mauritanian health facilities. In the future, choice of RDTs to be used must take account of thermostability in a hot, dry environment and their ability to detect P. falciparum and P. vivax.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 50%
Student > Master 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 33%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 17%
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 03 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,416,191
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin de la Société de pathologie exotique
#108
of 214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,647
of 421,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin de la Société de pathologie exotique
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 421,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.