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 |
Control of Malaria Vector Mosquitoes by Insecticide-Treated Combinations of Window Screens and Eave Baffles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2305.160662 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gerry F. Killeen, John P. Masalu, Dingani Chinula, Emmanouil A. Fotakis, Deogratius R. Kavishe, David Malone, Fredros Okumu |
| Abstract |
We assessed window screens and eave baffles (WSEBs), which enable mosquitoes to enter but not exit houses, as an alternative to indoor residual spraying (IRS) for malaria vector control. WSEBs treated with water, the pyrethroid lambda-cyhalothrin, or the organophosphate pirimiphos-methyl, with and without a binding agent for increasing insecticide persistence on netting, were compared with IRS in experimental huts. Compared with IRS containing the same insecticide, WSEBs killed similar proportions of Anopheles funestus mosquitoes that were resistant to pyrethroids, carbamates and organochlorines and greater proportions of pyrethroid-resistant, early exiting An. arabiensis mosquitoes. WSEBs with pirimiphos-methyl killed greater proportions of both vectors than lambda-cyhalothrin or lambda-cyhalothrin plus pirimiphos-methyl and were equally efficacious when combined with binding agent. WSEBs required far less insecticide than IRS, and binding agents might enhance durability. WSEBs might enable affordable deployment of insecticide combinations to mitigate against physiologic insecticide resistance and improve control of behaviorally resistant, early exiting vectors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | 20% |
| Brazil | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 130 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 18% |
| Researcher | 22 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 16% |
| Unknown | 33 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 27 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 15% |
| Unknown | 38 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 21 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,929,028
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#2,914
of 9,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,671
of 315,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#53
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 315,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 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 55% of its contemporaries.