| Title |
Comparison of the peripheral blood eosinophil count using near-patient testing and standard automated laboratory measurement in healthy, asthmatic and COPD subjects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s147216 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kirsty Hambleton, Clare M Connolly, Catherine Borg, Joanne H Davies, Helen P Jeffers, Richard EK Russell, Mona Bafadhel |
| Abstract |
Near-patient testing (NPT) allows clinical decisions to be made in a rapid and convenient manner and is often cost effective. In COPD the peripheral blood eosinophil count has been demonstrated to have utility in providing prognostic information and predicting response to treatment during an acute exacerbation. For this potential to be achieved having a reliable NPT of blood eosinophil count would be extremely useful. Therefore, we investigated the use of the HemoCue(®) WBC Diff System and evaluated its sensitivity and specificity in healthy, asthmatic and COPD subjects. This method requires a simple skin prick of blood and was compared to standard venepuncture laboratory analysis. The HemoCue(®) WBC Diff System measured the peripheral blood eosinophil count in healthy, asthma and COPD subjects with very close correlation to the eosinophil count as measured by standard venepuncture. The correlations were unaffected by disease status. This method for the measurement of the peripheral blood eosinophil count has the potential to provide rapid near-patient results and thus influence the speed of management decisions in the treatment of airway diseases. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 2 | 22% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 48% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,755,994
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#748
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,651
of 324,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#19
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 324,453 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 69% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.