↓ Skip to main content

Highlights from the 2016 HIV diagnostics conference: The new landscape of HIV testing in laboratories, public health programs and clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Virology, February 2017
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 (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Highlights from the 2016 HIV diagnostics conference: The new landscape of HIV testing in laboratories, public health programs and clinical practice
Published in
Journal of Clinical Virology, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jcv.2017.01.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura G. Wesolowski, Monica M. Parker, Kevin P. Delaney, S. Michele Owen

Abstract

The 2016 HIV Diagnostics Conference, held in Atlanta, Georgia, was attended by public health officials, laboratorians, HIV testing program managers, surveillance coordinators and industry representatives. The conference addressed test performance data, the implementation of new testing algorithms, quality assurance, and the application of new tests in a variety of settings. With regard to the recommended Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Association of Public Health Laboratories HIV laboratory testing algorithm, the conference featured performance data, implementation challenges such as a lack of test options for the second and third steps, as well as data needs for new tests that may be used as part of the algorithm. There are delays when nucleic acid testing is needed with the algorithm. Novel tests such as point of care nucleic acid tests are needed on the U.S. market to readily identify acute infection. Multiplex tests are being developed which allow for the simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens. CDC staff highlighted new guidance for testing in non-clinical settings. Innovative approaches to linking testing and care in some settings have led to identification of early infections, improved receipt of test results and expedited initiation of therapy. Work continues to optimize testing so that infections are accurately identified as early as possible and time to treatment is minimized to improve health outcomes and prevent transmission.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,760,761
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Virology
#411
of 2,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,340
of 424,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Virology
#5
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 424,567 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.