| Title |
Serology in chronic Q fever is still surrounded by question marks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-014-2048-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. C. A. Wegdam-Blans, H. T. Tjhie, J. M. Korbeeck, M. N. Nabuurs-Franssen, L. M. Kampschreur, T. Sprong, J. A. W. Teijink, M. P. Koopmans |
| Abstract |
Detection of antibodies using immunofluoresence tests (IFAT) is recommended for diagnosis of chronic Q fever, but other commercial antibody assays are also available. We compared an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Virion/Serion) and a complement fixation test (CFT) (Virion/Serion) for the detection of Coxiella burnetii IgG phase I and IgA phase I in early- and follow-up serum samples from patients with chronic Q fever, diagnosed according to an algorithm that involves IFAT. For this, we tested sera of 49 patients, including 30 proven, 14 probable and five possible chronic Q fever cases. Sensitivity of CFT for diagnosis of chronic Q fever was suboptimal (85 %), as eight patients, including five with chronic Q fever, tested negative at time of diagnosis, whereas IgG phase I antibodies were detected in these five patients by ELISA. Sensitivity of ELISA was higher, although three probable patients were missed. No differences in ELISA IgA phase I detection between proven chronic Q fever and probable were observed; instead possible patients were in majority IgA negative (60 %). Serological examination using ELISA and CFT in follow-up sera from 26 patients on treatment was unsatisfactory. Like IFAT, all kinetic options were possible: decreasing, remaining stable or even increase during time. This study demonstrated that the sensitivity of CFT-based phase I antibody detection is low and therefore not recommended for diagnosis of chronic Q fever. Based on our results, serological follow-up to guide treatment decisions was of limited value. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 28% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 38% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 14% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,455,453
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#381
of 2,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,251
of 304,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#3
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 304,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 92% of its contemporaries.