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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of the genexpert enterovirus assay (GXEA) with real-time one step RT-PCR for the detection of enteroviral RNA in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with meningitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Virology Journal, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12985-015-0258-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
JiYoung Hong, Ahyoun Kim, Seoyeon Hwang, Doo-Sung Cheon, Jong-Hyen Kim, June-Woo Lee, Jae-Hak Park, Byunghak Kang |
| Abstract |
Enteroviruses (EVs) are the leading cause of aseptic meningitis worldwide. Detection of enteroviral RNA in clinical specimens has been demonstrated to improve the management of patient care, especially that of neonates and young children. To establish a sensitive and reliable assay for routine laboratory diagnosis, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of the GeneXpert Enterovirus Assay (GXEA) with that of the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) based assay referred to as real-time one step RT-PCR (RTo-PCR). The sensitivity/specificity produced by GXEA and RTo-PCR were 100%/100% and 65%/100%, respectively. Both methods evaluated in this article can be used for detection of enterovirus in clinical specimens and these nucleic acid amplification methods are useful assays for the diagnosis of enteroviral infection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 24% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 38% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 14% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 2015.
All research outputs
#13,562,656
of 24,220,739 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#1,204
of 3,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,636
of 366,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#31
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,220,739 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 366,923 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.