| Title |
Chikungunya, Dengue, and Zika in Immunocompromised Hosts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Infectious Disease Reports, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11908-018-0612-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luiz Guilherme Darrigo, Alexandre Machado de Sant’Anna Carvalho, Clarisse Martins Machado |
| Abstract |
Describe the characteristics of chikungunya, dengue, and Zika in transplant recipients and immunocompromised hosts. Stem cell/bone marrow grafts, organs, and blood transfusions can transmit CHIKV/DENV/ZIKV infections, which are clinically similar, resembling influenza-like illness. Laboratory confirmation is necessary. In the acute phase, RT-PCR is preferred. DENV and ZIKV serology may cross-react. Delayed engraftment and extended viruria is observed in ZIKV+/HSCT recipients, while longer viremia is observed in DENV+/HSCT patients. Arbovirus persistence in organ tissues is generally unknown. Vaccine development is in early stages for CHIKV/ZIKV. No data is available to recommend the licensed DENV vaccine in transplant recipients. In endemic areas, the assessment of epidemiological risk is mandatory. Donor deferral for 120 days in suspected or confirmed ZIKV+ has been recommended, while CHIKV+ donors should wait 30 days. No deferral is recommended for DENV+ donors. CHIKV/DENV/ZIKV tests should be included in the differential of febrile neutropenia and other transplant syndromes. Reassessment of DENV serology is urgently needed. Prospective studies are necessary to determine the impact of CHIKV/DENV/ZIKV in this special population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 4 | 29% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Brazil | 1 | 7% |
| Colombia | 1 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 108 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 20% |
| Unknown | 25 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 26% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 26 | 24% |
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 27 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,019,364
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#83
of 489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,118
of 359,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 359,612 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.