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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Molecular detection of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato – An analytical comparison of real-time PCR protocols from five different Scandinavian laboratories
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0185434 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Malin Lager, Maximilian Faller, Peter Wilhelmsson, Vivian Kjelland, Åshild Andreassen, Rimtas Dargis, Hanne Quarsten, Ram Dessau, Volker Fingerle, Gabriele Margos, Sølvi Noraas, Katharina Ornstein, Ann-Cathrine Petersson, Andreas Matussek, Per-Eric Lindgren, Anna J. Henningsson |
| Abstract |
Lyme borreliosis (LB) is the most common tick transmitted disease in Europe. The diagnosis of LB today is based on the patient´s medical history, clinical presentation and laboratory findings. The laboratory diagnostics are mainly based on antibody detection, but in certain conditions molecular detection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) may serve as a complement. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the analytical sensitivity, analytical specificity and concordance of eight different real-time PCR methods at five laboratories in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Each participating laboratory was asked to analyse three different sets of samples (reference panels; all blinded) i) cDNA extracted and transcribed from water spiked with cultured Borrelia strains, ii) cerebrospinal fluid spiked with cultured Borrelia strains, and iii) DNA dilution series extracted from cultured Borrelia and relapsing fever strains. The results and the method descriptions of each laboratory were systematically evaluated. The analytical sensitivities and the concordance between the eight protocols were in general high. The concordance was especially high between the protocols using 16S rRNA as the target gene, however, this concordance was mainly related to cDNA as the type of template. When comparing cDNA and DNA as the type of template the analytical sensitivity was in general higher for the protocols using DNA as template regardless of the use of target gene. The analytical specificity for all eight protocols was high. However, some protocols were not able to detect Borrelia spielmanii, Borrelia lusitaniae or Borrelia japonica. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 7% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,956,098
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#125,347
of 196,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,690
of 318,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,330
of 3,822 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 318,615 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,822 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.