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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Geographical Analysis of the Distribution and Spread of Human Rabies in China from 2005 to 2011
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0072352 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danhuai Guo, Hang Zhou, Yan Zou, Wenwu Yin, Hongjie Yu, Yali Si, Jianhui Li, Yuanchun Zhou, Xiaoyan Zhou, Ricardo J. Soares. Magalhães |
| Abstract |
Rabies is a significant public health problem in China in that it records the second highest case incidence globally. Surveillance data on canine rabies in China is lacking and human rabies notifications can be a useful indicator of areas where animal and human rabies control could be integrated. Previous spatial epidemiological studies lacked adequate spatial resolution to inform targeted rabies control decisions. We aimed to describe the spatiotemporal distribution of human rabies and model its geographical spread to provide an evidence base to inform future integrated rabies control strategies in China. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 87 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 19% |
| Researcher | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 10% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 7 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 21% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 August 2013.
All research outputs
#20,200,843
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#173,074
of 193,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,289
of 199,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,169
of 4,826 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 199,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,826 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.