↓ Skip to main content

Therapeutic Efficacy and Macrofilaricidal Activity of Doxycycline for the Treatment of River Blindness

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Therapeutic Efficacy and Macrofilaricidal Activity of Doxycycline for the Treatment of River Blindness
Published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases, December 2014
DOI 10.1093/cid/ciu1152
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Walker, Sabine Specht, Thomas S. Churcher, Achim Hoerauf, Mark J. Taylor, María-Gloria Basáñez

Abstract

 Onchocerca volvulus and lymphatic filariae, causing river blindness and elephantiasis, depend on endosymbiotic Wolbachia bacteria for growth, development, fertility and survival. Clinical trials have shown that doxycycline treatment eliminates Wolbachia causing long-term sterilization of adult female filariae, effecting potent macrofilaricidal activity. The continual reinfection by drug-naïve worms that occurs in these trial settings dilutes observable anti-Wolbachia and antifilarial effects, making it difficult to estimate therapeutic efficacy and compare different doxycycline regimens, evaluated at different times post-treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 81 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Student > Master 10 12%
Other 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 15 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 19 July 2021.
All research outputs
#4,659,159
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#6,432
of 16,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,657
of 359,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#67
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 359,179 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 215 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 68% of its contemporaries.