| Title |
Correlation of West Nile Virus Incidence in Donated Blood with West Nile Neuroinvasive Disease Rates, United States, 2010–2012 - Volume 23, Number 2—February 2017 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2302.161058 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edouard Betsem, Zhanna Kaidarova, Susan L. Stramer, Beth Shaz, Merlyn Sayers, German LeParc, Brian Custer, Michael P. Busch, Edward L. Murphy |
| Abstract |
Over the past decade, West Nile virus (WNV) has spread across the United States. We aggregated blood donor data from 2010-2012 and then calculated the incidence of WNV RNA-positive donations and compared the incidence with neuroinvasive disease (NID) case data from the ArboNET surveillance system. Of 10,107,853 donations, 640 were confirmed positive. The seasonal WNV incidence rate per 100,000 persons was 33.4 (95% CI 22-45) in 2010, 25.7 (95% CI 15-34) in 2011, and 119.9 (95% CI 98-141) in 2012. NID to blood donor ratios were 1 in 164 (95% CI 152-178) in 2010, 1 in 158 (95% CI 145-174) in 2011, and 1 in 131 (95% CI 127-136) in 2012. We updated estimates of the ratio of NID to WNV infection rates, demonstrating stable disease penetrance over the study period. Blood donor WNV RNA screening is a valuable public health tool for WNV surveillance. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 02 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,840,564
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#2,870
of 9,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,761
of 448,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#60
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 448,866 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.