↓ Skip to main content

A Research Agenda for Helminth Diseases of Humans: Intervention for Control and Elimination

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, April 2012
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
161 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
378 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A Research Agenda for Helminth Diseases of Humans: Intervention for Control and Elimination
Published in
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001549
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roger K. Prichard, María-Gloria Basáñez, Boakye A. Boatin, James S. McCarthy, Héctor H. García, Guo-Jing Yang, Banchob Sripa, Sara Lustigman

Abstract

Recognising the burden helminth infections impose on human populations, and particularly the poor, major intervention programmes have been launched to control onchocerciasis, lymphatic filariasis, soil-transmitted helminthiases, schistosomiasis, and cysticercosis. The Disease Reference Group on Helminth Infections (DRG4), established in 2009 by the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), was given the mandate to review helminthiases research and identify research priorities and gaps. A summary of current helminth control initiatives is presented and available tools are described. Most of these programmes are highly dependent on mass drug administration (MDA) of anthelmintic drugs (donated or available at low cost) and require annual or biannual treatment of large numbers of at-risk populations, over prolonged periods of time. The continuation of prolonged MDA with a limited number of anthelmintics greatly increases the probability that drug resistance will develop, which would raise serious problems for continuation of control and the achievement of elimination. Most initiatives have focussed on a single type of helminth infection, but recognition of co-endemicity and polyparasitism is leading to more integration of control. An understanding of the implications of control integration for implementation, treatment coverage, combination of pharmaceuticals, and monitoring is needed. To achieve the goals of morbidity reduction or elimination of infection, novel tools need to be developed, including more efficacious drugs, vaccines, and/or antivectorial agents, new diagnostics for infection and assessment of drug efficacy, and markers for possible anthelmintic resistance. In addition, there is a need for the development of new formulations of some existing anthelmintics (e.g., paediatric formulations). To achieve ultimate elimination of helminth parasites, treatments for the above mentioned helminthiases, and for taeniasis and food-borne trematodiases, will need to be integrated with monitoring, education, sanitation, access to health services, and where appropriate, vector control or reduction of the parasite reservoir in alternative hosts. Based on an analysis of current knowledge gaps and identification of priorities, a research and development agenda for intervention tools considered necessary for control and elimination of human helminthiases is presented, and the challenges to be confronted are discussed.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 378 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 368 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 16%
Researcher 49 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 12%
Student > Bachelor 36 10%
Student > Postgraduate 18 5%
Other 73 19%
Unknown 97 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 70 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 68 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 17 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 4%
Other 74 20%
Unknown 103 27%
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 07 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,222,149
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#2,198
of 9,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,249
of 175,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#16
of 103 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 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,377 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 175,435 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.