↓ Skip to main content

Saliva is more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than nasopharyngeal swabs

Overview of attention for article published in medRxiv
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 15,533)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
94 news outlets
blogs
21 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6904 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
139 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
554 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
Saliva is more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than nasopharyngeal swabs
Published in
medRxiv
DOI 10.1101/2020.04.16.20067835
Authors

Wyllie, Anne L., Fournier, John, Casanovas-Massana, Arnau, Campbell, Melissa, Tokuyama, Maria, Vijayakumar, Pavithra, Geng, Bertie, Muenker, M. Catherine, Moore, Adam J., Vogels, Chantal B.F., Petrone, Mary E., Ott, Isabel M., Lu, Peiwen, Venkataraman, Arvind, Lu-Culligan, Alice, Klein, Jonathan, Earnest, Rebecca, Simonov, Michael, Datta, Rupak, Handoko, Ryan, Naushad, Nida, Sewanan, Lorenzo R., Valdez, Jordan, White, Elizabeth B., Lapidus, Sarah, Kalinich, Chaney C., Jiang, Xiaodong, Kim, Daniel J., Kudo, Eriko, Linehan, Melissa, Mao, Tianyang, Moriyama, Miyu, Oh, Ji Eun, Park, Annsea, Silva, Julio, Song, Eric, Takahashi, Takehiro, Taura, Manabu, Weizman, Orr-El, Wong, Patrick, Yang, Yexin, Bermejo, Santos, Odio, Camila, Omer, Saad B., Dela Cruz, Charles S., Farhadian, Shelli, Martinello, Richard A., Iwasaki, Akiko, Grubaugh, Nathan D., Ko, Albert I.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6,904 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 554 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 554 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 129 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 12%
Other 55 10%
Student > Master 45 8%
Student > Bachelor 39 7%
Other 117 21%
Unknown 103 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 115 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 85 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 8%
Engineering 39 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 37 7%
Other 94 17%
Unknown 139 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4777. 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 16 January 2021.
All research outputs
#347
of 16,638,522 outputs
Outputs from medRxiv
#17
of 15,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54
of 379,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from medRxiv
#3
of 2,107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,638,522 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 54.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 379,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.