↓ Skip to main content

Serum free light chain assays not total light chain assays are the standard of care to assess Monoclonal Gammopathies

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 275)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Serum free light chain assays not total light chain assays are the standard of care to assess Monoclonal Gammopathies
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia, January 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.bjhh.2015.11.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vania Tietsche de Moraes Hungria, Syreeta Allen, Petros Kampanis, Elyara Maria Soares

Abstract

The diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma is a challenge to the physician due to the non-specific symptoms (anemia, bone pain and recurrent infections) that are commonplace in the elderly population. However, early diagnosis is associated with less severe disease, including fewer patients presenting with acute renal injury, pathological fractures and severe anemia. Since 2006, the serum free light chain test Freelite(®) has been included alongside standard laboratory tests (serum and urine protein electrophoresis, and serum and urine immunofixation) as an aid in the identification of monoclonal proteins, which are a cornerstone for the diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma. The serum free light chain assay recognizes the light chain component of the immunoglobulin in its free form with high sensitivity. Other assays that measure light chains in the free and intact immunoglobulin forms are sensitive, but unfortunately, due to the nomenclature used, these assays (total light chains) are sometimes used in place of the free light chain assay. This paper reviews the available literature comparing the two assays and tries to clarify hypothetical limitations of the total assay to detect Multiple Myeloma. Furthermore, we elaborate on our study comparing the two assays used in 11 Light Chain Multiple Myeloma patients at presentation and 103 patients taken through the course of their disease. The aim of this article is to provide a clear discrimination between the two assays and to provide information to physicians and laboratory technicians so that they can utilize the International Myeloma Working Group guidelines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 5 12%
Other 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 8 19%

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 09 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,421,357
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia
#38
of 275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,494
of 393,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 275 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 393,628 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them