↓ Skip to main content

Surveillance of vector-borne pathogens under imperfect detection: lessons from Chagas disease risk (mis)measurement

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Surveillance of vector-borne pathogens under imperfect detection: lessons from Chagas disease risk (mis)measurement
Published in
Scientific Reports, January 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-18532-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thaís Tâmara Castro Minuzzi-Souza, Nadjar Nitz, César Augusto Cuba Cuba, Luciana Hagström, Mariana Machado Hecht, Camila Santana, Marcelle Ribeiro, Tamires Emanuele Vital, Marcelo Santalucia, Monique Knox, Marcos Takashi Obara, Fernando Abad-Franch, Rodrigo Gurgel-Gonçalves

Abstract

Vector-borne pathogens threaten human health worldwide. Despite their critical role in disease prevention, routine surveillance systems often rely on low-complexity pathogen detection tests of uncertain accuracy. In Chagas disease surveillance, optical microscopy (OM) is routinely used for detecting Trypanosoma cruzi in its vectors. Here, we use replicate T. cruzi detection data and hierarchical site-occupancy models to assess the reliability of OM-based T. cruzi surveillance while explicitly accounting for false-negative and false-positive results. We investigated 841 triatomines with OM slides (1194 fresh, 1192 Giemsa-stained) plus conventional (cPCR, 841 assays) and quantitative PCR (qPCR, 1682 assays). Detections were considered unambiguous only when parasitologists unmistakably identified T. cruzi in Giemsa-stained slides. qPCR was >99% sensitive and specific, whereas cPCR was ~100% specific but only ~55% sensitive. In routine surveillance, examination of a single OM slide per vector missed ~50-75% of infections and wrongly scored as infected ~7% of the bugs. qPCR-based and model-based infection frequency estimates were nearly three times higher, on average, than OM-based indices. We conclude that the risk of vector-borne Chagas disease may be substantially higher than routine surveillance data suggest. The hierarchical modelling approach we illustrate can help enhance vector-borne disease surveillance systems when pathogen detection is imperfect.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 31%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 22 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,461,883
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#44,030
of 126,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,385
of 444,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,409
of 4,092 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 126,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 444,950 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,092 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 65% of its contemporaries.