↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of fluorescent in-situ hybridization technique for diagnosis of malaria in Ahero Sub-County hospital, Kenya

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Evaluation of fluorescent in-situ hybridization technique for diagnosis of malaria in Ahero Sub-County hospital, Kenya
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2875-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Regina Kandie, Rachel Ochola, Kariuki Njaanake

Abstract

Malaria is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Treatment of malaria in a timely manner could avert deaths. Treatment ultimately relies on the rapid and accurate diagnosis. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), a cytogenetic technique based on detection of specific nucleic acid, has the potential to address the limitations of the current diagnostic approaches. This study investigates further the performance of FISH for the diagnosis of malaria in a rural setting in Western Kenya. Blood samples from 302 patients presenting with fever (temperature ≥ 37.5 °C) were examined for malaria using the Giemsa microscopy (GM), rapid diagnostic test (RDT), polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and FISH. The sensitivity and specificity of FISH was 85.6% and 96.2% respectively, while the corresponding values for GM were 82.2% and 100% respectively. RDT and PCR had sensitivities of 91.1% and 98.9%, respectively with their specificities being 89.6 and 100%, respectively. The positive predictive values for RDT, GM, FISH and PCR were 78.8%, 100%, 90.6% and 100%, respectively. The negative predictive values for RDT, GM, FISH and PCR were 96.0%, 93.0%, 94.0% and 99.5%, respectively. Their respective diagnostic accuracies were 90.1%, 94.7% 93.0% and 99.7%. The present study demonstrates that the specificity and reproducibility of FISH assays are high, thus adding to the growing evidence on the potential of the technique as an effective tool for the detection of malaria parasites in remote settings.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 27%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Psychology 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 5 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 August 2018.
All research outputs
#11,909,969
of 15,606,931 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,652
of 5,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,769
of 458,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#392
of 651 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,606,931 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 458,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 651 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.