| Title |
Survey of influenza and other respiratory viruses diagnostic testing in US hospitals, 2012–2013
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Influenza & Other Respiratory Viruses, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1111/irv.12355 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Su Su, Alicia M. Fry, Pam Daily Kirley, Deborah Aragon, Kimberly Yousey‐Hindes, James Meek, Kyle Openo, Oluwakemi Oni, Ruta Sharangpani, Craig Morin, Gary Hollick, Krista Lung, Matt Laidler, Mary Lou Lindegren, William Schaffner, Annette Atkinson, Sandra S. Chaves |
| Abstract |
We sought to assess diagnostic practices for influenza and other respiratory virus in a survey of hospitals and laboratories participating in the US Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network in 2012-13. Of the 240 participating laboratories, 67% relied only on commercially-available rapid influenza diagnostic tests to diagnose influenza. Few reported the availability of molecular diagnostic assays for detection of influenza (26%) and other viral pathogens (≤ 20%) in hospitals and commercial laboratories. Reliance on insensitive assays to detect influenza may detract from optimal clinical management of influenza infections in hospitals. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 August 2022.
All research outputs
#7,779,140
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Influenza & Other Respiratory Viruses
#574
of 1,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,393
of 405,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Influenza & Other Respiratory Viruses
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,224 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 405,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.