↓ Skip to main content

MALARIA DIAGNOSIS BY LOOP-MEDIATED ISOTHERMAL AMPLIFICATION (LAMP) IN THAILAND

Overview of attention for article published in Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
MALARIA DIAGNOSIS BY LOOP-MEDIATED ISOTHERMAL AMPLIFICATION (LAMP) IN THAILAND
Published in
Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, January 2016
DOI 10.1590/s1678-9946201658027
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ronja OCKER, Yongyut PROMPUNJAI, Salakchit CHUTIPONGVIVATE, Panagiotis KARANIS

Abstract

The loop-mediated isothermal amplification method (LAMP) is a recently developed molecular technique that amplifies nucleic acid under isothermal conditions. For malaria diagnosis, 150 blood samples from consecutive febrile malaria patients, and healthy subjects were screened in Thailand. Each sample was diagnosed by LAMP, microscopy and nested polymerase chain reaction (nPCR), using nPCR as the gold standard. Malaria LAMP was performed using Plasmodiumgenus and Plasmodium falciparum specific assays in parallel. For the genus Plasmodium, microscopy showed a sensitivity and specificity of 100%, while LAMP presented 99% of sensitivity and 93% of specificity. For P. falciparum, microscopy had a sensitivity of 95%, and LAMP of 90%, regarding the specificity; and microscopy presented 93% and LAMP 97% of specificity. The results of the genus-specific LAMP technique were highly consistent with those of nPCR and the sensitivity of P. falciparum detection was only marginally lower.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 123 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 %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 47 38%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 8%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 49 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 04 September 2020.
All research outputs
#5,041,872
of 34,447,360 outputs
Outputs from Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo
#62
of 1,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,076
of 446,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,447,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,035 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. 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 446,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them