| Title |
Recent transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in China: the implication of molecular epidemiology for tuberculosis control
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers of Medicine, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11684-017-0609-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chongguang Yang, Qian Gao |
| Abstract |
Tuberculosis (TB) has remained an ongoing concern in China. The national scale-up of the Directly Observed Treatment, Short Course (DOTS) program has accelerated the fight against TB in China. Nevertheless, many challenges still remain, including the spread of drug-resistant strains, high disease burden in rural areas, and enormous rural-to-urban migrations. Whether incident active TB represents recent transmission or endogenous reactivation has helped to prioritize the strategies for TB control. Evidence from molecular epidemiology studies has delineated the recent transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tuberculosis) strains in many settings. However, the transmission patterns of TB in most areas of China are still not clear. Studies carried out to date could not capture the real burden of recent transmission of the disease in China because of the retrospective study design, incomplete sampling, and use of low-resolution genotyping methods. We reviewed the implementations of molecular epidemiology of TB in China, the estimated disease burden due to recent transmission of M. tuberculosis strains, the primary transmission of drug-resistant TB, and the evaluation of a feasible genotyping method of M. tuberculosis strains in circulation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 48% |
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 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,584,192
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers of Medicine
#221
of 350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#331,591
of 443,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers of Medicine
#8
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 350 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 443,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.