↓ Skip to main content

Pleural effusion adenosine deaminase: a candidate biomarker to discriminate between Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacterial infections of the pleural space

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Pleural effusion adenosine deaminase: a candidate biomarker to discriminate between Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacterial infections of the pleural space
Published in
Clinics, May 2016
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2016(05)05
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruolin Li, Junli Wang, Xinfeng Wang, Maoshui Wang

Abstract

Delay in the treatment of pleural infection may contribute to its high mortality. In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of pleural adenosine deaminase in discrimination between Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacterial infections of the pleural space prior to selecting antibiotics. A total of 76 patients were enrolled and grouped into subgroups according to Gram staining: 1) patients with Gram-negative bacterial infections, aged 53.2±18.6 years old, of whom 44.7% had empyemas and 2) patients with Gram-positive bacterial infections, aged 53.5±21.5 years old, of whom 63.1% had empyemas. The pleural effusion was sampled by thoracocentesis and then sent for adenosine deaminase testing, biochemical testing and microbiological culture. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine the differences in adenosine deaminase levels between the groups. Correlations between adenosine deaminase and specified variables were also quantified using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Moreover, receiver operator characteristic analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of pleural effusion adenosine deaminase. Mean pleural adenosine deaminase levels differed significantly between Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacterial infections of the pleural space (191.8±32.1 U/L vs 81.0±16.9 U/L, p<0.01). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.689 (95% confidence interval: 0.570, 0.792, p<0.01) at the cutoff value of 86 U/L. Additionally, pleural adenosine deaminase had a sensitivity of 63.2% (46.0-78.2%); a specificity of 73.7% (56.9-86.6%); positive and negative likelihood ratios of 2.18 and 0.50, respectively; and positive and negative predictive values of 70.6% and 66.7%, respectively. Pleural effusion adenosine deaminase is a helpful alternative biomarker for early and quick discrimination of Gram-negative from Gram-positive bacterial infections of the pleural space, which is useful for the selection of antibiotics.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 23%
Researcher 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 3 23%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 15%
Environmental Science 1 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#667
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,105
of 311,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 311,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.