↓ Skip to main content

Determine TB-LAM lateral flow urine antigen assay for HIV-associated tuberculosis: recommendations on the design and reporting of clinical studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 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
Determine TB-LAM lateral flow urine antigen assay for HIV-associated tuberculosis: recommendations on the design and reporting of clinical studies
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-13-407
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen D Lawn, Keertan Dheda, Andrew D Kerkhoff, Jonathan G Peter, Susan Dorman, Catharina C Boehme, Mark P Nicol

Abstract

Detection of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis cell wall antigen lipoarabinomannan (LAM) in urine permits diagnoses of tuberculosis (TB) to be made in HIV-infected patients with advanced immunodeficiency. This can be achieved at the point-of-care within just 30 minutes using the Determine TB-LAM, which is a commercially available, lateral-flow urine 'strip test' assay. The assay has been shown to have useful diagnostic accuracy in patients enrolling in antiretroviral treatment services or in HIV-infected patients requiring admission to hospital medical wards in sub-Saharan Africa. Such patients have high mortality risk and have most to gain from rapid diagnosis of TB and immediate initiation of treatment. However, few studies using this assay have yet been reported and many questions remain concerning the correct use of the assay, interpretation of results, the role of the assay as an add-on test within existing diagnostic algorithms and the types of further studies needed. In this paper we address a series of questions with the aim of informing the design, conduct and interpretation of future studies. Specifically, we clarify which clinical populations are most likely to derive benefit from use of this assay and how patients enrolled in such studies might best be characterised. We describe the importance of employing a rigorous microbiological diagnostic reference standard in studies of diagnostic accuracy and discuss issues surrounding the specificity of the assay in different geographical areas and potential cross-reactivity with non-tuberculous mycobacteria and other organisms. We highlight the importance of careful procedures for urine collection and storage and the critical issue of how to read and interpret the test strips. Finally, we consider how the assay could be used in combination with other assays and outline the types of studies that are required to build the evidence base concerning its use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 180 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 53 29%
Student > Master 23 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 26 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 6%
Engineering 7 4%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 42 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 11 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,354,545
of 24,736,359 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#671
of 8,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,079
of 202,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#10
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,736,359 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 202,703 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 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 93% of its contemporaries.