↓ Skip to main content

Investigating Rare Risk Factors for Nipah Virus in Bangladesh: 2001–2012

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Investigating Rare Risk Factors for Nipah Virus in Bangladesh: 2001–2012
Published in
EcoHealth, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10393-016-1166-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonia T. Hegde, Hossain M. S. Sazzad, M. Jahangir Hossain, Mahbub-Ul Alam, Eben Kenah, Peter Daszak, Pierre Rollin, Mahmudur Rahman, Stephen P. Luby, Emily S. Gurley

Abstract

Human Nipah encephalitis outbreaks have been identified almost yearly in Bangladesh since 2001. Though raw date palm sap consumption and person-to-person contact are recognized as major transmission pathways, alternative pathways of transmission are plausible and may not have been identified due to limited statistical power in each outbreak. We conducted a risk factor analysis using all 157 cases and 632 controls surveyed in previous investigations during 2004-2012 to identify exposures independently associated with Nipah, since date palm sap was first asked about as an exposure in 2004. To further explore possible rare exposures, we also conducted in-depth interviews with all cases, or proxies, since 2001 that reported no exposure to date palm sap or contact with another case. Cases were 4.9 (95% 3.2-7.7) times more likely to consume raw date palm sap and 7.3 (95% 4.0-13.4) times more likely to have contact with a Nipah case than controls. In-depth interviews revealed that 39/182 (21%) of Nipah cases reporting neither date palm sap consumption nor contact with another case were misclassified. Prevention efforts should be focused on interventions to interrupt transmission through date palm sap consumption and person-to-person contact. Furthermore, pooling outbreak investigation data is a good method for assessing rare exposures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 25 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 26 39%
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 01 December 2021.
All research outputs
#7,633,280
of 24,840,108 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#359
of 740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,052
of 325,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#15
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,840,108 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 740 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 325,875 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.