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 |
COMPARISON BETWEEN FOUR USUAL METHODS OF IDENTIFICATION OF Candida SPECIES
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s0036-46652015000400002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Margarida Neves Souza, Stéfanie Otowicz Ortiz, Marcelo Martins Mello, Flávio de Mattos Oliveira, Luiz Carlos Severo, Cristine Souza Goebel |
| Abstract |
SUMMARYInfection by Candidaspp. is associated with high mortality rates, especially when treatment is not appropriate and/or not immediate. Therefore, it is necessary to correctly identify the genus and species of Candida. The aim of this study was to compare the identification of 89 samples of Candidaspp. by the manual methods germ tube test, auxanogram and chromogenic medium in relation to the ID 32C automated method. The concordances between the methods in ascending order, measured by the Kappa index were: ID 32C with CHROMagar Candida(κ = 0.38), ID 32C with auxanogram (κ = 0.59) and ID 32C with germ tube (κ = 0.9). One of the species identified in this study was C. tropicalis,which demonstrated a sensitivity of 46.2%, a specificity of 95.2%, PPV of 80%, NPV of 81.1%, and an accuracy of 80.9% in tests performed with CHROMagar Candida;and a sensitivity of 76.9%, a specificity of 96.8%, PPV of 90.9%, NPV of 91%, and an accuracy of 91% in the auxanogram tests. Therefore, it is necessary to know the advantages and limitations of methods to choose the best combination between them for a fast and correct identification of Candidaspecies. |
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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 81% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 19% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 75% |
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 25 May 2016.
All research outputs
#23,065,269
of 25,707,225 outputs
Outputs from Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo
#647
of 788 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,712
of 361,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo
#36
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,707,225 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 788 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 361,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.