↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Pilot study of participant-collected nasal swabs for acute respiratory infections in a low-income, urban population

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epidemiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Pilot study of participant-collected nasal swabs for acute respiratory infections in a low-income, urban population
Published in
Clinical Epidemiology, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/clep.s95847
Pubmed ID
Authors

Celibell Y Vargas, Liqun Wang, Yaritza Castellanos de Belliard, Maria Morban, Hilbania Diaz, Elaine L Larson, Philip LaRussa, Lisa Saiman, Melissa S Stockwell

Abstract

To assess the feasibility and validity of unsupervised participant-collected nasal swabs to detect respiratory pathogens in a low-income, urban minority population. This project was conducted as part of an ongoing community-based surveillance study in New York City to identify viral etiologies of acute respiratory infection. In January 2014, following sample collection by trained research assistants, participants with acute respiratory infection from 30 households subsequently collected and returned a self-collected/parent-collected nasal swab via mail. Self/parental swabs corresponding with positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction primary research samples were analyzed. Nearly all (96.8%, n=30/31) households agreed to participate; 100% reported returning the sample and 29 were received (median time: 8 days). Most (18; 62.1%) of the primary research samples were positive. For eight influenza-positive research samples, seven (87.5%) self-swabs were also positive. For ten other respiratory pathogen-positive research samples, eight (80.0%) self-swabs were positive. Sensitivity of self-swabs for any respiratory pathogen was 83.3% and 87.5% for influenza, and specificity for both was 100%. There was no relationship between level of education and concordance of results between positive research samples and their matching participant swab. In this pilot study, self-swabbing was feasible and valid in a low-income, urban minority population.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 11 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 13 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#416
of 793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,583
of 399,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 399,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.