↓ Skip to main content

LAMP kit for diagnosis of non-falciparum malaria in Plasmodium ovale infected patients

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
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.
Title
LAMP kit for diagnosis of non-falciparum malaria in Plasmodium ovale infected patients
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1669-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan Cuadros, Alexandra Martin Ramírez, Iveth J. González, Xavier C. Ding, Ramon Perez Tanoira, Gerardo Rojo-Marcos, Peña Gómez-Herruz, Jose Miguel Rubio

Abstract

Microscopy and rapid diagnosis tests have a limited sensitivity in diagnosis of malaria by Plasmodium ovale. The LAMP kit (LoopAMP®) can be used in the field without special equipment and could have an important role in malaria control programmes in endemic areas and for malaria diagnosis in returned travellers. The performance of the Pan primer of the kit in detecting malaria by P. ovale was compared with the results of standard nPCR in samples of patients returning from P. ovale endemic areas. Plasmodium ovale positive samples (29, tested by PCR and/or microscopy) and malaria negative specimens (398, tested by microscopy and PCR) were collected in different hospitals of Europe from June 2014 to March 2016 and frozen at -20 °C. Boil and spin method was used to extract DNA from all samples and amplification was performed with LoopAMP® MALARIA kit (Eiken Chemical, Japan) in an automated turbidimeter (Eiken 500). The results of LAMP read by turbidimetry and with the naked eye were compared. The kit showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 97.24% with positive and negative predictive values of 72.5 and 100%, respectively. Naked eyed readings were in accordance with turbidimetry readings (sensitivity, 92.5%, specificity, 98.96% and positive and negative predictive values, respectively, 90.24 and 99.22%). The limit of detection of LAMP assay for P. ovale was between 0.8 and 2 parasites/µl. The Pan primer of the Malaria kit LoopAMP® can detect P. ovale at very low-levels and showed a predictive negative value of 100%. This tool can be useful in malaria control and elimination programmes and in returned travellers from P. ovale endemic areas. Naked eye readings are equivalent to automated turbidimeter readings in specimens obtained with EDTA.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 5 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 January 2017.
All research outputs
#3,926,362
of 8,903,958 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,700
of 3,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,367
of 302,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#54
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,903,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 54th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 302,141 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.