↓ Skip to main content

Usefulness of cyanide-nitroprusside test in detecting incomplete recessive heterozygotes for cystinuria: a standardized dilution procedure

Overview of attention for article published in Urolithiasis, December 1998
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Usefulness of cyanide-nitroprusside test in detecting incomplete recessive heterozygotes for cystinuria: a standardized dilution procedure
Published in
Urolithiasis, December 1998
DOI 10.1007/s002400050076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Finocchiaro, Patrizia D'Eufemia, Mauro Celli, Marisa Zaccagnini, Laura Viozzi, Patrizia Troiani, Olga Mannarino, Omero Giardini

Abstract

We present the results of a cyanide-nitroprusside test (CNT) after a standardized dilution procedure of urine samples and report the efficiency of this method in detecting heterozygotes for cystinuria when applied on an open pediatric population. In the preliminary study we assayed by quantitative determination of amino acids 162 urine samples from a hospital population identifying 24 type III heterozygotes and 2 type II heterozygotes for cystinuria. The classic CNT gave 38 false positive results and 5 false negative results showing a sensitivity and specificity of 0.808 and 0.721, respectively. When progressively diluted, all samples of heterozygotes remained CNT positive up to a creatinine concentration of 90 mg/dl. At this level of dilution 31 out of 38 false positive turned to negative, thus obtaining a specificity of 0.922 without a lowering of the sensitivity in detecting heterozygotes. The standardized dilution at 90 mg/dl of creatinine concentration was applied to 74.7% of a population of 1024 schoolchildren. In this way 163 out of 210 positive results were eliminated and thus the specificity of CNT rose from 0.789 to 0.953. On the basis of these results, the method proposed can be regarded as reliable and useful for a screening program in detecting heterozygotes for cystinuria.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 5 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 8%
Unknown 5 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 April 2016.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Urolithiasis
#230
of 716 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,477
of 109,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Urolithiasis
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 716 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 109,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them