↓ Skip to main content

Beyond insecticides: new thinking on an ancient problem

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Microbiology, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
312 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
506 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.
Title
Beyond insecticides: new thinking on an ancient problem
Published in
Nature Reviews Microbiology, February 2013
DOI 10.1038/nrmicro2968
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth A. McGraw, Scott L. O'Neill

Abstract

Vector-borne disease is one of the greatest contributors to human mortality and morbidity throughout the tropics. Mosquito-transmitted diseases such as malaria, dengue, yellow fever and filariasis are the main contributors to this burden. Although insecticides have historically been used to try to control vector populations, over the past 15 years, substantial progress has been made in developing alternative vector control strategies ranging from biocontrol methods through to genetic modification of wild insect populations. Here, we review recent advances concerning these strategies and consider the potential impediments to their deployment, including the challenges of obtaining regulatory approval and community acceptance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 506 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 1%
United States 5 <1%
Brazil 4 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Senegal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 7 1%
Unknown 476 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 117 23%
Researcher 102 20%
Student > Master 85 17%
Student > Bachelor 55 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 4%
Other 66 13%
Unknown 59 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 232 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 76 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 19 4%
Social Sciences 16 3%
Other 63 12%
Unknown 65 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 23 January 2022.
All research outputs
#917,252
of 24,953,268 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Microbiology
#448
of 2,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,553
of 320,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Microbiology
#5
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,953,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,838 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 320,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.