↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Accuracy of the InBios Scrub Typhus Detect IgM Rapid Test for the Detection of IgM Antibodies by Using Conventional Serology

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Vaccine Immunology (formerly CDLI), October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

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
Comparative Accuracy of the InBios Scrub Typhus Detect IgM Rapid Test for the Detection of IgM Antibodies by Using Conventional Serology
Published in
Clinical and Vaccine Immunology (formerly CDLI), October 2015
DOI 10.1128/cvi.00390-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hugh W. F. Kingston, Stuart D. Blacksell, Ampai Tanganuchitcharnchai, Achara Laongnualpanich, Buddha Basnyat, Nicholas P. J. Day, Daniel H. Paris

Abstract

This study investigated the comparative accuracy of a recombinant p56 kDa type-specific antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for scrub typhus for the detection of IgM antibodies using conventional serology, in well-characterized serum samples from undifferentiated febrile illness patients. The RDT showed high specificity and promising comparative accuracy with 82% sensitivity and 98% specificity for samples defined positive at the IgM IFA positivity cutoff titer of ≥1:1,600, versus 92% and 95% at ≥1:6,400, respectively.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 %
Researcher 9 30%
Student > Master 6 20%
Other 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 23%

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 07 July 2016.
All research outputs
#9,599,802
of 12,498,285 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Vaccine Immunology (formerly CDLI)
#1,385
of 1,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,717
of 238,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Vaccine Immunology (formerly CDLI)
#18
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,498,285 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,559 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 238,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.