↓ Skip to main content
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
112 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.
Article details
Title
The Urine Circulating Cathodic Antigen (CCA) Dipstick: A Valid Substitute for Microscopy for Mapping and Point-Of-Care Diagnosis of Intestinal Schistosomiasis
Published in
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, January 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002008
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The World Health Organization now recommends the provision of praziquantel treatment to preschool-aged children infected with schistosomiasis. For intestinal schistosomiasis the current operational field diagnostic standard is examination of a thick Kato-Katz smear by microscopy prepared from a single stool specimen, and although pragmatic, this methodology has well-known shortcomings. Here, as a potential alternative, the performance of the urine circulating cathodic antigen (CCA) dipstick test was assessed in terms of disease-mapping and point-of-care diagnosis for intestinal schistosomiasis in preschool-aged children. Our manuscript reports on findings at baseline and at the end of a one-year longitudinal treatment study.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 108 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Researcher 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 22 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,541,960
of 28,815,917 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#1,566
of 10,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,909
of 301,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#13
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,815,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 301,314 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 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 91% of its contemporaries.