↓ Skip to main content

Detection of Plasmodium using filter paper and nested PCR for patients with malaria in Sanliurfa, in Turkey

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Detection of Plasmodium using filter paper and nested PCR for patients with malaria in Sanliurfa, in Turkey
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1334-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nebiye Yentur Doni, Fadile Yildiz Zeyrek, Adnan Seyrek

Abstract

The objective of this study to detect Plasmodium and a subspecies of Plasmodium using filter paper in malaria endemic province, Sanliurfa, in Turkey, compare the results of nested PCR (nPCR) with microscopy for the diagnosis of malaria and present the epidemiological data of malaria. This study was carried out in malaria-endemic Sanliurfa between 2008 and 2011. Finger prick blood samples, thick and thin Giemsa-stained blood smears, were collected from 153 malaria-suspected farmworkers. The Giemsa-stained blood smears were examined microscopically. The obtained DNA products, extracted from blood-spotted filter papers or from the thick blood smears, were analysed by nPCR to amplify the 18S ssrRNA Plasmodium gene with genus and specific primers. The results of the microscopy were compared to the nPCR results. Of the specimens, 7.2 % were determined as Plasmodium-positive by microscopy, whereas 9.8 % were determined as Plasmodium-positive by nPCR. Of the positive Plasmodium specimens, 93.33 % were identified as P. vivax. Four out of the 15 specimens that were microscopically diagnosed as negative were Plasmodium-positive with nPCR. When compared to the microscopy, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values of the nPCR were determined as 100, 97.2 and 73.3 %, respectively. nPCR was determined to be more sensitive and specific than microscopy. This study revealed that the accurate diagnosis of malaria by nPCR was compulsory in malaria-endemic Sanliurfa and nPCR should be applied routinely in laboratory studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 29%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 21%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 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 24 May 2017.
All research outputs
#8,387,864
of 15,348,483 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,618
of 4,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,465
of 268,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,348,483 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 268,759 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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