↓ Skip to main content

Do rhinoviruses reduce the probability of viral co-detection during acute respiratory tract infections?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Virology, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
149 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Do rhinoviruses reduce the probability of viral co-detection during acute respiratory tract infections?
Published in
Journal of Clinical Virology, April 2009
DOI 10.1016/j.jcv.2009.03.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

R.M. Greer, P. McErlean, K.E. Arden, C.E. Faux, A. Nitsche, S.B. Lambert, M.D. Nissen, T.P. Sloots, I.M. Mackay

Abstract

Human rhinoviruses (HRVs) are often concurrently detected with other viruses found in the respiratory tract because of the high total number of HRV infections occurring throughout the year. This feature has previously relegated HRVs to being considered passengers in acute respiratory infections. HRVs remain poorly characterized and are seldom included as a target in diagnostic panels despite their pathogenic potential, infection-associated healthcare expenditure and relatively unmoderated elicitation of an antiviral state.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 122 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 8 6%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 24 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 5%
Mathematics 5 4%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 35 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,077,699
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Virology
#73
of 2,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,657
of 106,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Virology
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 106,565 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.