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 |
Evidence of dipstick superiority over urine microscopy analysis for detection of hematuria
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-016-2240-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aurélien Bataille, Morgane Wetzstein, Alexandre Hertig, Sophie Vimont, Eric Rondeau, Pierre Galichon |
| Abstract |
There is an unresolved debate on the best screening method for hematuria as a symptom of glomerulonephritis or urological malignancies. The urinary dipstick is generally considered as an imperfect surrogate for urine microscopy analysis. We designed a study to compare urine microscopy analysis, urinary dipstick and flow cytometry, using controlled dilutions of blood in urine samples from volunteers collected in two different physiologically-relevant conditions (basal state and hyperhydration). We found that although all techniques were 100 % effective in detecting hematuria at basal state, these results were variably reproduced when testing the same final amount of hematuria in urine collected after hyperhydration. Our data shows a variable sensitivity for the detection of hematuria by urine microscopy analysis or flow cytometry, but not by urinary dipstick. Urinary dipstick qualifies as a better screening test for hematuria than urine microscopy analysis or flow cytometry, as it is sensitive and performs better in unstandardized conditions. It is universally available and also faster and cheaper than cytometric techniques. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,952,681
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#407
of 4,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,701
of 332,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#6
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 332,540 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 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 92% of its contemporaries.