↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
14 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
213 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.
Article details
Title
Target Product Profile for a Diagnostic Assay to Differentiate between Bacterial and Non-Bacterial Infections and Reduce Antimicrobial Overuse in Resource-Limited Settings: An Expert Consensus
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0161721
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Acute fever is one of the most common presenting symptoms globally. In order to reduce the empiric use of antimicrobial drugs and improve outcomes, it is essential to improve diagnostic capabilities. In the absence of microbiology facilities in low-income settings, an assay to distinguish bacterial from non-bacterial causes would be a critical first step. To ensure that patient and market needs are met, the requirements of such a test should be specified in a target product profile (TPP). To identify minimal/optimal characteristics for a bacterial vs. non-bacterial fever test, experts from academia and international organizations with expertise in infectious diseases, diagnostic test development, laboratory medicine, global health, and health economics were convened. Proposed TPPs were reviewed by this working group, and consensus characteristics were defined. The working group defined non-severely ill, non-malaria infected children as the target population for the desired assay. To provide access to the most patients, the test should be deployable to community health centers and informal health settings, and staff should require <2 days of training to perform the assay. Further, given that the aim is to reduce inappropriate antimicrobial use as well as to deliver appropriate treatment for patients with bacterial infections, the group agreed on minimal diagnostic performance requirements of >90% and >80% for sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Other key characteristics, to account for the challenging environment at which the test is targeted, included: i) time-to-result <10 min (but maximally <2 hrs); ii) storage conditions at 0-40°C, ≤90% non-condensing humidity with a minimal shelf life of 12 months; iii) operational conditions of 5-40°C, ≤90% non-condensing humidity; and iv) minimal sample collection needs (50-100μL, capillary blood). This expert approach to define assay requirements for a bacterial vs. non-bacterial assay should guide product development, and enable targeted and timely efforts by industry partners and academic institutions.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 211 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 13%
Other 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Master 14 7%
Other 33 15%
Unknown 51 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Other 40 19%
Unknown 61 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 15 June 2025.
All research outputs
#944,591
of 31,634,113 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#11,469
of 212,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,320
of 329,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#211
of 4,297 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,634,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 212,087 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 329,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,297 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.