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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Chronic Chagas disease: PCR-xenodiagnosis without previous microscopic observation is a useful tool to detect viable Trypanosoma cruzi
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biological Research, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.4067/s0716-97602013000300011 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Miguel Saavedra, Inés Zulantay, Werner Apt, Gabriela Martínez, Antonio Rojas, Jorge Rodríguez |
| Abstract |
We evaluate the elimination of the microscopic stage of conventional xenodiagnosis (XD) to optimize the parasitological diagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi in chronic Chagas disease. To this purpose we applied under informed consent two XD cages to 150 Chilean chronic chagasic patients. The fecal samples (FS) of the triatomines at 30, 60 and 90 days post feeding were divided into two parts: in one a microscopic search for mobile trypomastigote and/or epimastigote forms was performed. In the other part, DNA extraction-purification for PCR directed to the conserved region of kDNA minicircles of trypanosomes (PCR-XD), without previous microscopic observation was done. An XD was considered positive when at least one mobile T. cruzi parasite in any one of three periods of incubation was observed, whereas PCR-XD was considered positive when the 330 bp band specific for T. cruzi was detected. 25 of 26 cases with positive conventional XD were PCR-XD positive (concordance 96.2%), whereas 85 of 124 cases with negative conventional XD were positive by PCR-XD (68.5%). Human chromosome 12 detected by Real-time PCR used as exogenous internal control of PCR-XD reaction allowed to discounting of PCR inhibition and false negative in 40 cases with negative PCR-XD. Conclusion: PCR-XD performed without previous microscopic observation is a useful tool for detection of viable parasites with higher efficiency then conventional XD. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 35% |
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 22 December 2013.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Biological Research
#601
of 642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,419
of 289,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Research
#23
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 642 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. 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 289,007 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 24 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.