↓ Skip to main content

The Diagnostic Sensitivity of Dengue Rapid Test Assays Is Significantly Enhanced by Using a Combined Antigen and Antibody Testing Approach

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
246 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
The Diagnostic Sensitivity of Dengue Rapid Test Assays Is Significantly Enhanced by Using a Combined Antigen and Antibody Testing Approach
Published in
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, June 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001199
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott R. Fry, Michelle Meyer, Matthew G. Semple, Cameron P. Simmons, Shamala Devi Sekaran, Johnny X. Huang, Catriona McElnea, Chang-Yi Huang, Andrea Valks, Paul R. Young, Matthew A. Cooper

Abstract

Serological tests for IgM and IgG are routinely used in clinical laboratories for the rapid diagnosis of dengue and can differentiate between primary and secondary infections. Dengue virus non-structural protein 1 (NS1) has been identified as an early marker for acute dengue, and is typically present between days 1-9 post-onset of illness but following seroconversion it can be difficult to detect in serum.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Brazil 3 1%
United States 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
French Polynesia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Unknown 233 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 15%
Student > Bachelor 35 14%
Student > Master 33 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 39 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 19 8%
Engineering 10 4%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 55 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 12 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,658,122
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#1,801
of 9,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,496
of 126,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#18
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 126,899 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.