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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evolving Epidemiology of Japanese Encephalitis: Implications for Vaccination
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Infectious Disease Reports, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11908-018-0635-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John P. Caldwell, Lin H. Chen, Davidson H. Hamer |
| Abstract |
We examine the present global burden of Japanese encephalitis (JE) in endemic populations, summarize published cases in travelers since 2009, examine current guidelines for vaccination for international travelers, and consider challenges in prevention of this vector-borne disease. We identified 11 JE cases in travelers that were published in peer-reviewed literature since 2009. JE incidence in endemic countries appears to be declining but the number of JE cases reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) varied from estimates derived from other published reports based on serosurveys or sentinel surveillance. Current JE vaccines appear to be safe and are not associated with delayed hypersensitivity in contrast to the older mouse brain vaccine. Given differences between WHO-reported cases and local surveillance data, future research on true incidence is needed. Regular assessment will inform JE risk in travelers. National and international guidelines on JE vaccination varied; we suggest areas for improvement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 14 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,211,559
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#18
of 489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,146
of 329,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 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 489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. 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 329,246 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 95% of its contemporaries.