| Title |
Application of nanodiagnostics in point-of-care tests for infectious diseases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s137338 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yongzhong Wang, Li Yu, Xiaowei Kong, Leming Sun |
| Abstract |
Although tremendous efforts have been put into the treatment of infectious diseases to prevent epidemics and mortality, it is still one of the major health care issues that have a profound impact on humankind. Therefore, the development of specific, sensitive, accurate, rapid, low-cost, and easy-to-use diagnostic tools is still in urgent demand. Nanodiagnostics, defined as the application of nanotechnology to medical diagnostics, can offer many unique opportunities for more successful and efficient diagnosis and treatment for infectious diseases. In this review, we provide an overview of the nanodiagnostics for infectious diseases from nanoparticle-based, nanodevice-based, and point-of-care test (POCT) platforms. Most importantly, emphasis focused on the recent trends in the nanotechnology-based POCT system. The current state-of-the-art and most promising point-of-care nanodiagnostic technologies, including miniaturized diagnostic magnetic resonance platform, magnetic barcode assay system, cell phone-based polarized light microscopy platform, cell phone-based dongle platform, and paper-based POCT platform, for infectious diseases were fully examined. The limitations, challenges, and future trends of the nanodiagnostics in POCTs for infectious diseases are also discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 207 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 12% |
| Researcher | 24 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 14% |
| Unknown | 52 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 29 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 10% |
| Engineering | 17 | 8% |
| Materials Science | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 48 | 23% |
| Unknown | 64 | 31% |
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 11 July 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#3,598
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,158
of 326,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#78
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 326,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.