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 |
Aedes aegypti eggs oviposited on water surface collected from field ovitraps in Nova Iguaçu City, Brazil
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0037-8682-0087-2015 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eduardo Dias Wermelinger, Aldo Pacheco Ferreira, Raimundo Wilson de Carvalho, Adriano Anselmo da Silva, Ciro Villanova Benigno |
| Abstract |
Aedes aegypti eggs can be collected from the water surface. Aedes aegypti oviposition from 97 field ovitraps was studied. Of the 16,016 eggs collected, 11,439 were obtained from paddles in ovitraps and 4,577 from water. Further, 89 (91.8%) traps contained eggs on water and 22 (22.7%) traps contained eggs only on water. In field traps, Aedes aegypti females usually oviposit some eggs on water surface suggesting that they might also oviposit on water of some natural breeding, and this possibility needs to be investigated. Eggs oviposited on water need to be considered for collecting trap data. |
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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 27% |
| Researcher | 7 | 27% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 27% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 15% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 May 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
#953
of 1,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,530
of 359,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
#26
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,193 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 359,515 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.