| Title |
Recent advances in rapid pathogen detection method based on biosensors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-018-3230-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ying Chen, Zhenzhen Wang, Yingxun Liu, Xin Wang, Ying Li, Ping Ma, Bing Gu, Hongchun Li |
| Abstract |
As strain variation and drug resistance become more pervasive, the prevention and control of infection have been a serious problem in recent years. The detection of pathogen is one of the most important parts of the process of diagnosis. Having a series of advantages, such as rapid response, high sensitivity, ease of use, and low cost, biosensors have received much attention and been studied deeply. Moreover, relying on its characteristics of small size, real time, and multiple analyses, biosensors have developed rapidly and used widely and are expected to be applied for microbiological detection in order to meet higher accuracy required by clinical diagnosis. The main goal of this contribution is not to simply collect and list all papers related to pathogen detection based on biosensors published recently, but to discuss critically the development and application of many kinds of biosensors such as electrochemical (amperometric, impedimetric, potentiometric, and conductometric), optical (fluorescent, fibre optic and surface plasmon resonance), and piezoelectric (quartz crystal microbalances and atomic force microscopy) biosensors in pathogen detection as well as the comparisons with the existing clinical detection methods (traditional culture, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, polymerase chain reaction, and mass spectrometry). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 101 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 33 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 9 | 9% |
| Engineering | 7 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 40 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 April 2019.
All research outputs
#15,886,720
of 23,599,923 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#1,915
of 2,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,031
of 333,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#24
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,599,923 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 333,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.