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 |
Point-of-care devices for physiological measurements in field conditions. A smorgasbord of instruments and validation procedures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Comparative Biochemistry & Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.cbpa.2016.04.009 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caroline Lindholm, Jordi Altimiras |
| Abstract |
Point-of-care (POC) devices provide quick diagnostic results that increase the efficiency of patient care. Many POC devices are currently available to measure metabolites, blood gases, hormones, disease biomarkers or pathogens in samples as diverse as blood, urine, feces or exhaled breath. This diversity is potentially very useful for the comparative physiologist in field studies if proper validation studies are carried out to justify the accuracy of the devices in non-human species under different conditions. Our review presents an account of physiological parameters that can be monitored with POC devices and surveys the literature for suitable quantitative and statistical procedures for comparing POC measurements with reference "gold standard" procedures. We provide a set of quantitative tools and report on different correlation coefficients (Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient or the more widespread Pearson correlation coefficient), describe the graphical assessment of variation using Bland-Altman plots and discuss the difference between Model I and Model II regression procedures. We also report on three validation datasets for lactate, glucose and hemoglobin measurements in birds using the newly proposed procedures. We conclude the review with a haphazard account of future developments in the field, emphasizing the interest in lab-on-a-chip devices to carry out more complex experimental measurements than the ones currently available in POC devices. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 65 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 20% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 21% |
| Chemistry | 6 | 9% |
| Engineering | 5 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 23 | 35% |
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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,517,312
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Comparative Biochemistry & Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology
#1,171
of 1,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,057
of 316,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Comparative Biochemistry & Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 316,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 73% of its contemporaries.