↓ Skip to main content

Pooled PCR testing strategy and prevalence estimation of submicroscopic infections using Bayesian latent class models in pregnant women receiving intermittent preventive treatment at Machinga…

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Pooled PCR testing strategy and prevalence estimation of submicroscopic infections using Bayesian latent class models in pregnant women receiving intermittent preventive treatment at Machinga District Hospital, Malawi, 2010
Published in
Malaria Journal, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-13-509
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhiyong Zhou, Rebecca Mans Mitchell, Julie Gutman, Ryan E Wiegand, Dyson A Mwandama, Don P Mathanga, Jacek Skarbinski, Ya Ping Shi

Abstract

Low malaria parasite densities in pregnancy are a diagnostic challenge. PCR provides high sensitivity and specificity in detecting low density of parasites, but cost and technical requirements limit its application in resources-limited settings. Pooling samples for PCR detection was explored to estimate prevalence of submicroscopic malaria infection in pregnant women at delivery. Previous work uses gold-standard based methods to calculate sensitivity and specificity of tests, creating a challenge when newer methodologies are substantially more sensitive than the gold standard. Thus prevalence was estimated using Bayesian latent class models (LCMs) in this study.

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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Burkina Faso 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 24%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 7%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 4 9%

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 18 March 2020.
All research outputs
#9,096,510
of 15,848,563 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,930
of 4,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,940
of 306,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#149
of 284 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,848,563 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 306,393 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 284 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.