↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Loa loa infection detection using biomarkers: current perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Research and reports in tropical medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 101)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Loa loa infection detection using biomarkers: current perspectives
Published in
Research and reports in tropical medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.2147/rrtm.s132380
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean Paul Akue, Elsa-Rush Eyang-Assengone, Roland Dieki

Abstract

Loa loa is originally a restricted filarial worm from central Africa and some west African countries. However, numerous imported cases are being reported throughout the world due to human movement. Traditionally, its diagnosis is based on identification of microfilariae in the peripheral blood or the passage of the adult worm under the conjunctiva. However, few patients have microfilariae in their peripheral blood, while the majority of infected people are amicrofilaremic (without microfilariae in their blood), despite clinical symptoms suggesting L. loa infection. This situation suggests that diagnoses based on the presence of microfilariae in the blood or the ocular passage of an adult worm, are not sensitive. Therefore, it seems necessary to search for biomarkers to remedy this situation. Furthermore, L. loa is a major obstacle in the control of other filarial worms in areas where these filariae are co-endemic. To develop a diagnostic tool based on a biomarker, several approaches have been considered using antibodies, antigens or nucleic acid detection. However, none of the diagnostic techniques in loiasis based on biomarkers has reached the point of care as have microscopic detection of microfilariae or observation of ocular passage of a worm.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 26 59%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 26 59%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,430,186
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Research and reports in tropical medicine
#31
of 101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,556
of 344,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research and reports in tropical medicine
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 344,304 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.