↓ Skip to main content

Influenza Virus

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 4: Diagnosis of influenza virus.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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.
Chapter title
Diagnosis of influenza virus.
Chapter number 4
Book title
Influenza Virus
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, April 2012
DOI 10.1007/978-1-61779-621-0_4
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-61779-620-3, 978-1-61779-621-0
Authors

George KS, Kirsten St. George, George, Kirsten St.

Abstract

The laboratory diagnosis of influenza uses a wide range of techniques including rapid immunoassays, immunofluorescence techniques, virus culture methods, and increasingly sophisticated molecular assays. The potential utility of each of these methods has changed over the years, most dramatically perhaps with the emergence of the pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza virus. While rapid immunoassays had previously been widely used in clinics and emergency departments, their poor detection sensitivity for the 2009 subtype brought their application into question. Concerns were also raised about the detection sensitivities of antibody reagents used in immunofluorescence methods, and the safety of virus culture was initially questioned with regard to the newly emerged subtype. Early molecular detection techniques had been labor intensive, and required separate facilities in order to prevent contamination. Those techniques have largely been supplanted by more modern methods, most notably real-time reverse transcription PCR assays, which are currently the method of choice in many laboratories for the detection and subtyping of influenza viruses. Suspension and low-density array assays are also increasingly used, in an effort to detect larger numbers of viruses in a single assay, and microarrays have proven valuable for outbreak analysis and pathogen discovery. Each laboratory must assess the optimal methods for its situation and the best application of each technique, taking into account numerous factors including its budget, equipment, staff expertise, the patient population that it serves, the needs of its submitting clinicians, and its surveillance and public health responsibilities.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Master 6 21%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Professor 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 14%
Computer Science 2 7%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 7 24%
Unknown 3 10%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 September 2013.
All research outputs
#20,200,843
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#9,856
of 13,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,253
of 163,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#40
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,083 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 163,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.