| Title |
External Quality Assessment for Zika Virus Molecular Diagnostic Testing, Brazil - Volume 24, Number 5—May 2018 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2405.171747 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlo Fischer, Celia Pedroso, Alfredo Mendrone, Ana Maria Bispo de Filippis, Antonio Carlos Rosário Vallinoto, Bergmann Morais Ribeiro, Edison Luiz Durigon, Ernesto T.A. Marques, Gubio S. Campos, Isabelle F.T. Viana, José Eduardo Levi, Luciano Cesar Scarpelli, Mauricio Lacerda Nogueira, Michele de Souza Bastos, Nathalia C. Santiago Souza, Ricardo Khouri, Sanny M. Costa Lira, Shirley Vasconcelos Komninakis, Cécile Baronti, Rémi N. Charrel, Beate M. Kümmerer, Christian Drosten, Carlos Brites, Xavier de Lamballerie, Matthias Niedrig, Eduardo Martins Netto, Jan Felix Drexler |
| Abstract |
We conducted an external quality assessment of Zika virus molecular diagnostic tests in Brazil using a new Zika virus standard. Of 15 laboratories, 73% showed limited sensitivity and specificity. Viral load estimates varied significantly. Continuous quality assurance is needed to adequately estimate risk for Zika virus-associated disease and determine patient care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 20% |
| Germany | 1 | 10% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 101. 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 14 July 2022.
All research outputs
#419,520
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#571
of 9,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,289
of 342,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#7
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.7. 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 342,434 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 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 94% of its contemporaries.