| Title |
Clinical application of QuantiFERON-TB Gold in-tube in the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-019-03768-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guangming Chen, Huabin Wang, Yanhong Wang |
| Abstract |
At present, although it has made great progress in the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis, tuberculosis is still an important cause of morbidity and mortality. There were approximately 8.6 million new cases of tuberculosis in 2012, and approximately 1.3 million people died from tuberculosis. Early diagnosis and timely treatment are essential for controlling the spread of tuberculosis infection and reducing mortality. Conventional methods of Mycobacterium tuberculosis detection such as acid-fast staining microscopy and tuberculin skin test are widely used, but with low sensitivity or specificity. In recent years, a newly developed quantitative test, γ-interferon release test (IGRA), has been recognized and widely applied to the early diagnosis and monitoring of tuberculosis. QuantiFERON-TB Gold in-tube (QFT-GIT) is one of the mature IGRA methods. This paper summarizes the researches on QFT-GIT in recent years and introduces its principles, methodology, clinical application, and factors of uncertain results for the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 52% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 17 | 52% |
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 02 December 2019.
All research outputs
#18,701,252
of 23,177,498 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#2,200
of 2,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#337,423
of 459,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#47
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,177,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,805 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 459,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.