↓ Skip to main content

Respiratory Carcinogenesis

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 105: Diagnostic Performance of Different Pleural Fluid Biomarkers in Tuberculous Pleurisy.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Diagnostic Performance of Different Pleural Fluid Biomarkers in Tuberculous Pleurisy.
Chapter number 105
Book title
Respiratory Carcinogenesis
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/5584_2014_105
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-916921-7, 978-3-31-916922-4
Authors

J Klimiuk, R Krenke, A Safianowska, P Korczynski, R Chazan, J. Klimiuk, R. Krenke, A. Safianowska, P. Korczynski, R. Chazan, Klimiuk, J., Krenke, R., Safianowska, A., Korczynski, P., Chazan, R.

Abstract

Due to the paucibacillary nature of tuberculous pleural effusion the diagnosis of pleural tuberculosis is challenging. This prospective study was undertaken to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ten different pleural fluid biomarkers in the differentiation between tuberculous and non-tuberculous pleural effusions. Two hundred and three patients with pleural effusion (117 men and 86 women, median age 65 years) were enrolled. Routine diagnostic work-up, including thoracentesis and pleural fluid analysis, was performed to determine the cause of pleural effusion. The following biomarkers were measured in pleural fluid: adenosine deaminase (ADA), interferon gamma (IFN-γ), interleukin 2 soluble receptor (IL-2sRα), sub-unit p40 of interleukin 12b (IL-12p40), interleukin 18 (IL-18), interleukin 23 (IL-23), IFN-γ induced protein 10 kDa (IP-10), Fas-ligand, human macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC) and tumor necrosis factor alfa (TNF-α). There were 44 (21.7 %) patients with tuberculous pleural effusion, 88 (43.3 %) patients with malignant pleural effusion, 35 (17.2 %) with parapneumonic effusion/pleural empyema, 30 (14.8 %) with pleural transudates, and 6 (3 %) with miscellaneous underlying diseases. Pleural fluid IFN-γ was found the most accurate marker differentiating tuberculous from non-tuberculous pleural effusion, with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC 97 %, 98 %, 95.5 %, 99.4 %, and 0.99, respectively. Two other biomarkers (IP-10 and Fas ligand) also showed very high diagnostic accuracy with AUC ≥ 0.95. AUC for ADA was 0.92. We conclude that IFN-γ, IP-10, and Fas-ligand in pleural fluid are highly accurate biomarkers differentiating tuberculous from non-tuberculous pleural effusion.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 12%
Unspecified 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 6 24%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 28%
Unspecified 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 48%
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 11 January 2015.
All research outputs
#17,151,188
of 26,184,649 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#2,491
of 5,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,217
of 364,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#110
of 273 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,184,649 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 364,589 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 273 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 59% of its contemporaries.