↓ Skip to main content

Passive surveillance of United Kingdom bats for lyssaviruses (2005–2015)

Overview of attention for article published in Epidemiology & Infection, July 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Passive surveillance of United Kingdom bats for lyssaviruses (2005–2015)
Published in
Epidemiology & Infection, July 2017
DOI 10.1017/s0950268817001455
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Passive surveillance for lyssaviruses in UK bats has been ongoing since 1987 and has identified 13 cases of EBLV-2 from a single species; Myotis daubentonii. No other lyssavirus species has been detected. Between 2005 and 2015, 10 656 bats were submitted, representing 18 species, creating a spatially and temporally uneven sample of British bat fauna. Uniquely, three UK cases originate from a roost at Stokesay Castle in Shropshire, England, where daily checks for grounded and dead bats are undertaken and bat carcasses have been submitted for testing since 2007. Twenty per cent of Daubenton's bats submitted from Stokesay Castle since surveillance began, have tested positive for EBLV-2. Phylogenetic analysis reveals geographical clustering of UK viruses. Isolates from Stokesay Castle are more closely related to one another than to viruses from other regions. Daubenton's bats from Stokesay Castle represent a unique opportunity to study a natural population that appears to maintain EBLV-2 infection and may represent endemic infection at this site. Although the risk to public health from EBLV-2 is low, consequences of infection are severe and effective communication on the need for prompt post-exposure prophylaxis for anyone that has been bitten by a bat is essential.

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 profiles of 14 X users 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 54 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 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 23 43%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 25 46%
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 12 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,446,047
of 34,400,738 outputs
Outputs from Epidemiology & Infection
#778
of 4,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,582
of 356,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epidemiology & Infection
#10
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,400,738 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,765 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 356,917 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.