↓ Skip to main content

Analytical sensitivity of current best-in-class malaria rapid diagnostic tests

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 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
Analytical sensitivity of current best-in-class malaria rapid diagnostic tests
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1780-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alfons Jimenez, Roxanne R. Rees-Channer, Rushini Perera, Dionicia Gamboa, Peter L. Chiodini, Iveth J. González, Alfredo Mayor, Xavier C. Ding

Abstract

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are today the most widely used method for malaria diagnosis and are recommended, alongside microscopy, for the confirmation of suspected cases before the administration of anti-malarial treatment. The diagnostic performance of RDTs, as compared to microscopy or PCR is well described but the actual analytical sensitivity of current best-in-class tests is poorly documented. This value is however a key performance indicator and a benchmark value needed to developed new RDTs of improved sensitivity. Thirteen RDTs detecting either the Plasmodium falciparum histidine rich protein 2 (HRP2) or the plasmodial lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) antigens were selected from the best performing RDTs according to the WHO-FIND product testing programme. The analytical sensitivity of these products was evaluated using a range of reference materials including P. falciparum and Plasmodium vivax whole parasite samples as well as recombinant proteins. The best performing HRP2-based RDTs could detect all P. falciparum cultured samples at concentrations as low as 0.8 ng/mL of HRP2. The limit of detection of the best performing pLDH-based RDT specifically detecting P. vivax was 25 ng/mL of pLDH. The analytical sensitivity of P. vivax and Pan pLDH-based RDTs appears to vary considerably from product to product, and improvement of the limit-of-detection for P. vivax detecting RDTs is needed to match the performance of HRP2 and Pf pLDH-based RDTs for P. falciparum. Different assays using different reference materials produce different values for antigen concentration in a given specimen, highlighting the need to establish universal reference assays.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 168 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 15%
Researcher 20 12%
Other 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 38 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 9%
Engineering 14 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Other 36 21%
Unknown 45 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#7,277,460
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,319
of 5,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,895
of 309,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#62
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 309,205 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 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 50% of its contemporaries.