↓ Skip to main content

Practical Guidelines for Studies on Sandfly-Borne Phleboviruses: Part I: Important Points to Consider Ante Field Work

Overview of attention for article published in Vector Borne & Zoonotic Diseases, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Practical Guidelines for Studies on Sandfly-Borne Phleboviruses: Part I: Important Points to Consider Ante Field Work
Published in
Vector Borne & Zoonotic Diseases, January 2017
DOI 10.1089/vbz.2016.1957
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The purpose of this review is to provide practical information to help researchers intending to perform "from field to laboratory" studies on phleboviruses transmitted by sandflies. This guideline addresses the different steps to be considered starting from the field collection of sandflies to the laboratory techniques aiming at the detection, isolation, and characterization of sandfly-borne phleboviruses. In this guideline article, we address the impact of various types of data for an optimal organization of the field work intending to collect wildlife sandflies for subsequent virology studies. Analysis of different data sets should result in the geographic positioning of the trapping stations. The overall planning, the equipment and tools needed, the manpower to be deployed, and the logistics to be anticipated and set up should be organized according to the objectives of the field study for optimal efficiency.

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 39 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 %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 15%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 12 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 December 2018.
All research outputs
#11,459,380
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from Vector Borne & Zoonotic Diseases
#631
of 1,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,459
of 462,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vector Borne & Zoonotic Diseases
#19
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 462,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.