↓ Skip to main content

Acute rheumatic fever

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, July 2005
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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
548 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
389 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
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
Acute rheumatic fever
Published in
The Lancet, July 2005
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66874-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan R Carapetis, Malcolm McDonald, Nigel J Wilson

Abstract

Acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and its chronic sequela, rheumatic heart disease (RHD), have become rare in most affluent populations, but remain unchecked in developing countries and in some poor, mainly indigenous populations in wealthy countries. More than a century of research, mainly in North America and Europe, has improved our understanding of ARF and RHD. However, whether traditional views need to be updated in view of the epidemiological shift of the past 50 years is still to be established, and improved data from developing countries are needed. Doctors who work in populations with a high incidence of ARF are adapting existing diagnostic guidelines to increase their sensitivity. Group A streptococcal vaccines are still years away from being available and, even if the obstacles of serotype coverage and safety can be overcome, their cost could make them inaccessible to the populations that need them most. New approaches to primary prevention are needed given the limitations of primary prophylaxis as a population-based strategy. The most effective approach for control of ARF and RHD is secondary prophylaxis, which is best delivered as part of a coordinated control programme.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 389 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 6 2%
United States 4 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 368 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 57 15%
Student > Master 45 12%
Researcher 37 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 9%
Student > Postgraduate 30 8%
Other 92 24%
Unknown 93 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 201 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 2%
Other 41 11%
Unknown 92 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 28 May 2022.
All research outputs
#3,415,846
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#16,772
of 43,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,783
of 69,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#59
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 43,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 69,923 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 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 64% of its contemporaries.