↓ Skip to main content

Orientia, rickettsia, and leptospira pathogens as causes of CNS infections in Laos: a prospective study

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet Global Health, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
193 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
Orientia, rickettsia, and leptospira pathogens as causes of CNS infections in Laos: a prospective study
Published in
The Lancet Global Health, February 2015
DOI 10.1016/s2214-109x(14)70289-x
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Scrub typhus (caused by Orientia tsutsugamushi), murine typhus (caused by Rickettsia typhi), and leptospirosis are common causes of febrile illness in Asia; meningitis and meningoencephalitis are severe complications. However, scarce data exist for the burden of these pathogens in patients with CNS disease in endemic countries. Laos is representative of vast economically poor rural areas in Asia with little medical information to guide public health policy. We assessed whether these pathogens are important causes of CNS infections in Laos.

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 5 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 193 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 %
Vietnam 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 190 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 15%
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 39 20%
Unknown 47 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 4%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 59 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 April 2023.
All research outputs
#8,909,060
of 33,738,238 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet Global Health
#2,520
of 3,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,754
of 408,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet Global Health
#37
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,738,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 58.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 408,864 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 76% 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 is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.