↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation and Comparison of Multiple Test Methods, Including Real-time PCR, for Legionella Detection in Clinical Specimens

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Evaluation and Comparison of Multiple Test Methods, Including Real-time PCR, for Legionella Detection in Clinical Specimens
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00175
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adriana Peci, Anne-Luise Winter, Jonathan B. Gubbay

Abstract

Legionella is a Gram-negative bacterium that can cause Pontiac fever, a mild upper respiratory infection and Legionnaire's disease, a more severe illness. We aimed to compare the performance of urine antigen, culture, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test methods and to determine if sputum is an acceptable alternative to the use of more invasive bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). Data for this study included specimens tested for Legionella at Public Health Ontario Laboratories from 1st January, 2010 to 30th April, 2014, as part of routine clinical testing. We found sensitivity of urinary antigen test (UAT) compared to culture to be 87%, specificity 94.7%, positive predictive value (PPV) 63.8%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 98.5%. Sensitivity of UAT compared to PCR was 74.7%, specificity 98.3%, PPV 77.7%, and NPV 98.1%. Out of 146 patients who had a Legionella-positive result by PCR, only 66 (45.2%) also had a positive result by culture. Sensitivity for culture was the same using either sputum or BAL (13.6%); sensitivity for PCR was 10.3% for sputum and 12.8% for BAL. Both sputum and BAL yield similar results regardless testing methods (Fisher Exact p-values = 1.0, for each test). In summary, all test methods have inherent weaknesses in identifying Legionella; therefore, more than one testing method should be used. Obtaining a single specimen type from patients with pneumonia limits the ability to diagnose Legionella, particularly when urine is the specimen type submitted. Given ease of collection and similar sensitivity to BAL, clinicians are encouraged to submit sputum in addition to urine when BAL submission is not practical from patients being tested for Legionella.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 29%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 July 2023.
All research outputs
#6,430,199
of 25,121,016 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,456
of 13,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,741
of 345,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#20
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,121,016 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 345,783 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.