↓ Skip to main content

Challenges for molecular and serological ZIKV infection confirmation

Overview of attention for article published in Child's Nervous System, November 2017
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 (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
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.
Title
Challenges for molecular and serological ZIKV infection confirmation
Published in
Child's Nervous System, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00381-017-3641-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zilton Farias Meira de Vasconcelos, Renata Campos Azevedo, Nathália Thompson, Leonardo Gomes, Letícia Guida, Maria Elisabeth Lopes Moreira

Abstract

Zika Virus (ZIKV), member of Flaviviridae family and Flavivirus genus, has recently emerged as international public health emergency after its association with neonatal microcephaly cases. Clinical diagnosis hindrance involves symptom similarities produced by other arbovirus infections, therefore laboratory confirmation is of paramount importance. The most reliable test available is based on ZIKV RNA detection from body fluid samples. However, short viremia window periods and asymptomatic infections diminish the success rate for RT-PCR positivity. Beyond molecular detection, all serology tests in areas where other Flavivirus circulates proved to be a difficult task due to the broad range of cross-reactivity, especially with dengue pre-exposed individuals. Altogether, lack of serological diagnostic tools brings limitations to any retrospective evaluation. Those studies are central in the context of congenital infection that could occur asymptomatically and mask prevalence and risk rates.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 24 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,367,874
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Child's Nervous System
#801
of 2,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,744
of 330,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child's Nervous System
#16
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,800 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 330,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 71% of its contemporaries.