| Title |
Present status of laboratory diagnosis of human taeniosis/cysticercosis in Europe
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-017-3029-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. A. Gómez-Morales, T. Gárate, J. Blocher, B. Devleesschauwer, G. S. A. Smit, V. Schmidt, M. J. Perteguer, A. Ludovisi, E. Pozio, P. Dorny, S. Gabriël, A. S. Winkler |
| Abstract |
Human cysticercosis (CC) is a parasitic zoonosis caused by the larval stage (cyst) of the Taenia solium. Cysts can establish in the human central nervous system (neurocysticercosis, NCC) and other organs and tissues; they also develop in pigs, the natural intermediate host. Human taeniosis may be caused by T. solium, Taenia saginata and Taenia asiatica tapeworms; these infections are usually asymptomatic, but show a significant relevance as they perpetuate the parasites' life cycle, and, in the case of T. solium, they are the origin of (N)CC. In European Union (EU) member states and associated countries, the occurrence of autochthonous T. solium cases is debated, and imported cases have significantly increased lately; the status of T. asiatica has been never reported, whereas T. saginata is prevalent and causes an economic impact due to condemned carcasses. Based on their effects on the EU society, the specific diagnosis of these pathologies is relevant for their prevention and control. The aims of this study were to know the diagnostic tests used in European laboratories for human taeniosis/cysticercosis by means of a questionnaire, to determine potential gaps in their detection, and to obtain preliminary data on the number of diagnosed taeniosis/CC cases. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Belgium | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 89 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 30 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 17 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 32 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 November 2021.
All research outputs
#4,792,785
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#416
of 3,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,566
of 330,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#5
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,203 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 330,767 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 91% of its contemporaries.