↓ Skip to main content

Opportunities and pitfalls of molecular testing for detecting sexually transmitted pathogens

Overview of attention for article published in Pathology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
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.
Title
Opportunities and pitfalls of molecular testing for detecting sexually transmitted pathogens
Published in
Pathology, April 2015
DOI 10.1097/pat.0000000000000239
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ella Trembizki, Anna-Maria G. Costa, Sepehr N. Tabrizi, David M. Whiley, Jimmy Twin

Abstract

In the last 20 years, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) have gradually replaced traditional methods for the detection of sexually transmitted infections. NAAT technology comes with some considerable benefits for diagnosis, including increased sensitivity, rapid result turnaround and suitability for high throughput screening of asymptomatic individuals using more-readily available specimens. However, the transition to NAAT has not come without its problems. False-negative and false-positive results have been reported owing to various technical issues. Furthermore, increased reliance on NAATs for diagnosis have created the need to develop NAAT-based methods to inform treatment, being an area that presents its own set of challenges. In this review article, we explore NAAT-based detection of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Mycoplasma genitalium and Trichomonas vaginalis. In doing so, we consider the benefits and limitations of NAAT-based technology and highlight areas where further research and development is in need.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 26%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Librarian 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 9 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 10 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 May 2015.
All research outputs
#6,997,643
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Pathology
#210
of 1,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,104
of 279,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pathology
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,528 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 279,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.