| Title |
Evidence of human leptospirosis cases in a cohort of febrile patients in Bangui, Central African Republic: a retrospective study, 2012–2015
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-018-3298-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pierre-Alain Rubbo, Marie-Estelle Soupé-Gilbert, Davy Martial Golongba, Florent Mbombo, Dominique Girault, Emmanuel Nakouné, Jean-Pierre Lombart, Sébastien Breurec, Cyrille Goarant |
| Abstract |
In spite of a local favorable environment, leptospirosis has never been described in Central African Republic so far mainly because of the weakness of diagnostic tests and differential diagnostic strategy for febrile jaundice cases negative for yellow fever virus. Here we bring a complementary insight to conclusions of Gadia CLB et al. regarding the presence of leptospirosis in Central African Republic in YFV-negative febrile icteric patients. Our study included 497 individuals presenting with fever and jaundice but negative for yellow fever infection, retrospectively selected from the national surveillance biobank for yellow fever in Institut Pasteur de Bangui, Central African Republic. A combination of serological (ELISA, agglutination) and molecular biology techniques (quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction) was used to identify Leptospira or the patient's immune response to the bacteria. Statistical analyses were done using the non parametric Mann-Withney U test with a 5% statistical threshold. ELISA test results showed 46 positive serum samples while 445 were negative and 6 remains equivocal. In addition, the reference microscopic agglutination test for leptospirosis diagnostic confirmed that 7 out of 32 samples tested were positive. Unfortunately, all 497 serum samples tested for leptospirosis were negative using the molecular techniques. Unlike Gadia et al., we confirmed that leptospirosis is circulating in Central African Republic and therefore may be responsible for some of the unexplained cases of febrile jaundice in the country. Thus, leptospirosis needs to be investigated to improve identification of aetiological pathogens. Our study also suggests a need to improve sample transportation and storage conditions. |
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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 48% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 5 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,171,098
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,046
of 7,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,207
of 330,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#25
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. 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 330,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.