↓ Skip to main content

Current and future distribution of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Health Geographics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 654)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
Title
Current and future distribution of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region
Published in
International Journal of Health Geographics, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12942-018-0125-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Els Ducheyne, Nhu Nguyen Tran Minh, Nabil Haddad, Ward Bryssinckx, Evans Buliva, Frédéric Simard, Mamunur Rahman Malik, Johannes Charlier, Valérie De Waele, Osama Mahmoud, Muhammad Mukhtar, Ali Bouattour, Abdulhafid Hussain, Guy Hendrickx, David Roiz

Abstract

Aedes-borne diseases as dengue, zika, chikungunya and yellow fever are an emerging problem worldwide, being transmitted by Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Lack of up to date information about the distribution of Aedes species hampers surveillance and control. Global databases have been compiled but these did not capture data in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), and any models built using these datasets fail to identify highly suitable areas where one or both species may occur. The first objective of this study was therefore to update the existing Ae. aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) and Ae. albopictus (Skuse, 1895) compendia and the second objective was to generate species distribution models targeted to the EMR. A final objective was to engage the WHO points of contacts within the region to provide feedback and hence validate all model outputs. The Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus compendia provided by Kraemer et al. (Sci Data 2:150035, 2015; Dryad Digit Repos, 2015) were used as starting points. These datasets were extended with more recent species and disease data. In the next step, these sets were filtered using the Köppen-Geiger classification and the Mahalanobis distance. The occurrence data were supplemented with pseudo-absence data as input to Random Forests. The resulting suitability and maximum risk of establishment maps were combined into hard-classified maps per country for expert validation. The EMR datasets consisted of 1995 presence locations for Ae. aegypti and 2868 presence locations for Ae. albopictus. The resulting suitability maps indicated that there exist areas with high suitability and/or maximum risk of establishment for these disease vectors in contrast with previous model output. Precipitation and host availability, expressed as population density and night-time lights, were the most important variables for Ae. aegypti. Host availability was the most important predictor in case of Ae. albopictus. Internal validation was assessed geographically. External validation showed high agreement between the predicted maps and the experts' extensive knowledge of the terrain. Maps of distribution and maximum risk of establishment were created for Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus for the WHO EMR. These region-specific maps highlighted data gaps and these gaps will be filled using targeted monitoring and surveillance. This will increase the awareness and preparedness of the different countries for Aedes borne diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 188 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 20%
Student > Master 24 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 54 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 9%
Environmental Science 11 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 4%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 65 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 15 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,387,379
of 25,715,849 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Geographics
#40
of 654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,286
of 457,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Geographics
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,715,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 457,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them