↓ Skip to main content

Serological evaluation for Chagas disease in migrants from Latin American countries resident in Rome, Italy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Serological evaluation for Chagas disease in migrants from Latin American countries resident in Rome, Italy
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12879-018-3118-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefania Pane, Maria Letizia Giancola, Pierluca Piselli, Angela Corpolongo, Ernestina Repetto, Rita Bellagamba, Claudia Cimaglia, Stefania Carrara, Piero Ghirga, Alessandra Oliva, Nazario Bevilacqua, Ahmad Al Rousan, Carla Nisii, Giuseppe Ippolito, Emanuele Nicastri

Abstract

Chagas disease (CD) is a systemic parasitic infection caused by the protozoan Trypanosoma cruzi, whose chronic phase may lead to cardiac and intestinal disorders. Endemic in Latin America where it is transmitted mainly by vectors, large-scale migrations to other countries have turned CD into a global health problem because of its alternative transmission routes through blood transfusion, tissue transplantation, or congenital. Aim of this study was to compare the performance of two commercially available tests for serological diagnosis of CD in a group of Latin American migrants living in a non-endemic setting (Rome, Italy). The study was based on a cross-sectional analysis of seroprevalence in this group. Epidemiological risk factors associated to CD were also evaluated in this study population. The present study was conducted on 368 subjects from the Latin American community resident in Rome. Following WHO guidelines, we employed a diagnostic strategy based on two tests to detect IgG antibodies against T. cruzi in the blood (a lysate antigen-based ELISA and a chemiluminescent microparticle CMIA composed of multiple recombinant antigens), followed by a third test (an immunochromatographic assay) on discordant samples. Our diagnostic approach produced 319/368 (86.7%) concordant negative and 30/368 (8.1%) concordant positive results after the first screening. Discrepancies were obtained for 19/368 (5.2%) samples that were tested using the third assay, obtaining 2 more positive and 17 negative results. The final count of positive samples was 32/368 (8.7% of the tested population). Increasing age, birth in Bolivia, and previous residence in a mud house were independent factors associated with T. cruzi positive serology. Serological diagnosis of CD is still challenging, because of the lack of a reference standard serological assay for diagnosis. Our results reaffirm the importance of performing CD screening in non-endemic countries; employing a fully automated and highly sensitive CMIA assay first could be a cost- and resource-effective strategy for mass screening of low-risk patients. However, our results also suggest that the WHO strategy of using two different serological assays, combined with epidemiological information, remains the best approach for patients coming from endemic countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 25 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 27 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 15 June 2019.
All research outputs
#13,511,645
of 23,527,856 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,186
of 7,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,711
of 328,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#49
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,527,856 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,835 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 328,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.