↓ Skip to main content

Low-cost tools for diagnosing and monitoring HIV infection in low-resource settings

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
152 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
257 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
Low-cost tools for diagnosing and monitoring HIV infection in low-resource settings
Published in
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, October 2012
DOI 10.2471/blt.12.102780
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grace Wu, Muhammad H Zaman

Abstract

Low-cost technologies to diagnose and monitor human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in developing countries are a major subject of current research and health care in the developing world. With the great need to increase access to affordable HIV monitoring services in rural areas of developing countries, much work has been focus on the development of point-of-care technologies that are affordable, robust, easy to use, portable and of sufficient quantitative accuracy to enable clinical decision-making. For diagnosis of HIV infection, some low-cost tests, such as lateral flow tests and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, are already in place and well established. However, portable quantitative tests for rapid HIV monitoring at the point of care have only recently been introduced to the market. In this review, we discuss low-cost tests for HIV diagnosis and monitoring in low-resource settings, including promising technologies for use at the point of care, that are available or close to market.

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 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 257 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 2%
Other 5 2%
Researcher 5 2%
Student > Master 4 2%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 231 90%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 4%
Engineering 4 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 1%
Materials Science 2 <1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 231 90%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,511,593
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#89
of 599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,705
of 195,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 195,079 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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