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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cardiac Troponin I carryover by very high patient samples still causes false-positive results on the Beckman Coulter AccuTnI + 3
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1177/0004563215606739 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Urs Wilgen, Carel J Pretorius, Michael J Gould, Jacobus PJ Ungerer |
| Abstract |
False positive cTnI results as a result of carryover have previously been reported on the Beckman Coulter AccuTnI assay. We sought to determine if the carryover problem had been resolved with the new AccuTnI+3 assay. Carryover experiments were performed in parallel on the Beckman Coulter Access2 analyser using the legacy AccuTnI and new AccuTnI+3 assays. The same negative patient pool sample was analysed before and after a single analysis of an extremely elevated patient sample. Analysis of a single extremely high sample caused elevations above the 99(t) (h) percentile cut-off, and thus false positive cTnI results on both assays. Both assays demonstrated carryover and subsequent further elevations in negative pool results the following day. Our study replicates our previously published findings of carryover and reagent pack contamination on the AccuTnI assay. Despite improvements on the new AccuTnI+3 assay, carryover and reagent pack contamination are still present. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 44% |
| Librarian | 1 | 11% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 11% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical Biochemistry
#802
of 1,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,878
of 278,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical Biochemistry
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,270 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 278,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 60% of its contemporaries.