| Title |
Molecular screening of multidrug-resistance tuberculosis by a designated public health laboratory in Taiwan
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-017-3082-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
H.-C. Lin, C.-L. Perng, Y.-W. Lai, F.-G. Lin, C.-J. Chiang, H.-A. Lin, R. Jou, T.-S. Chiueh |
| Abstract |
This manuscript describes our experience in early identifying MDR-TB cases in high-risk populations by setting up a single-referral molecular diagnosis laboratory in Taiwan. Taiwan Centers for Disease Control designated a single-referral laboratory to provide the GenoType MTBDRplus test for screening high-risk MDR-TB populations nationwide in 2012-2015. A total of 5,838 sputum specimens from 3,308 patients were tested within 3 days turnaround time. Compared with the conventional culture and drug susceptibility testing, the overall performance of the GenoType MTBDRplus test for detecting TB infection showed accuracy of 70.7%, sensitivity of 85.9%, specificity of 65.7%, positive predictive value of 45.5%, and negative predictive value of 93.3%. And the accuracy of detecting rifampin (RIF) resistance, isoniazid (INH) resistance, and MDR-TB (resistant to at least RIF and INH) were 96.5%, 95.2%, and 97.7%, respectively. MDR-TB contacts presented a higher rate of mutated codons 513-519, GenoType MTBDRplus banding pattern: rpoB WT3(-), and rpoB WT4(-) than the treatment failure group. The MDR-TB contact group also had a higher rate of inhA C15T mutation, banding pattern: inhA WT1(-), and inhA MUT1(+) than the recurrent group. Resistance profiles of MDR-TB isolates also varied geographically. The referral molecular diagnosis system contributed to rapid detection and initiation of appropriate therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 18 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 25% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 23 | 38% |
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 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,538,060
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#1,898
of 2,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,144
of 317,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#25
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 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 2,799 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 317,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.