↓ Skip to main content

Presence and Persistence of Ebola or Marburg Virus in Patients and Survivors: A Rapid Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 11,449)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
52 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Presence and Persistence of Ebola or Marburg Virus in Patients and Survivors: A Rapid Systematic Review
Published in
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, February 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004475
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The 2013-15 Ebola outbreak was unprecedented due to sustained transmission within urban environments and thousands of survivors. In 2014 the World Health Organization stated that there was insufficient evidence to give definitive guidance about which body fluids are infectious and when they pose a risk to humans. We report a rapid systematic review of published evidence on the presence of filoviruses in body fluids of infected people and survivors. Scientific articles were screened for information about filovirus in human body fluids. The aim was to find primary data that suggested high likelihood of actively infectious filovirus in human body fluids (viral RNA). Eligible infections were from Marburg virus (MARV or RAVV) and Zaire, Sudan, Taï Forest and Bundibugyo species of Ebola. Cause of infection had to be laboratory confirmed (in practice either tissue culture or RT-PCR tests), or evidenced by compatible clinical history with subsequent positivity for filovirus antibodies or inflammatory factors. Data were extracted and summarized narratively. 6831 unique articles were found, and after screening, 33 studies were eligible. For most body fluid types there were insufficient patients to draw strong conclusions, and prevalence of positivity was highly variable. Body fluids taken >16 days after onset were usually negative. In the six studies that used both assay methods RT-PCR tests for filovirus RNA gave positive results about 4 times more often than tissue culture. Filovirus was reported in most types of body fluid, but not in every sample from every otherwise confirmed patient. Apart from semen, most non-blood, RT-PCR positive samples are likely to be culture negative and so possibly of low infectious risk. Nevertheless, it is not apparent how relatively infectious many body fluids are during or after illness, even when culture-positive, not least because most test results come from more severe cases. Contact with blood and blood-stained body fluids remains the major risk for disease transmission because of the known high viral loads in blood.

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 16 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 143 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 %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Unknown 139 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 19%
Student > Master 21 15%
Other 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 34 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 19 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 43 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 419. 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 11 August 2023.
All research outputs
#88,262
of 34,362,729 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#36
of 11,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,263
of 335,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#1
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,362,729 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 335,605 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 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 99% of its contemporaries.