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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparative Performance of Electrochemiluminescence Immunoassay and EIA for HIV Screening in a Multiethnic Region of China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0048162 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiaohui Bi, Hongxia Ning, Tingting Wang, Dongdong Li, Yongming Liu, Tingfu Yang, Jiansheng Yu, Chuanmin Tao |
| Abstract |
The recent approval of 4th generation HIV tests has forced many laboratories to decide whether to shift from 3rd to these tests. There are limited published studies on the comparative evaluation of these two different assays. We compare the performance of fourth-generation electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ChIA) and third-generation enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (EIA) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and gauge whether the shift from EIA to ChIA could be better in a multiethnic region of China. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 29% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 November 2012.
All research outputs
#18,319,742
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#153,897
of 193,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,092
of 183,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,559
of 4,819 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 183,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,819 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.