| Title |
Early Evidence for Zika Virus Circulation among Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2308.162007 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tania Ayllón, Renata de Mendonça Campos, Patrícia Brasil, Fernanda Cristina Morone, Daniel Cardoso Portela Câmara, Guilherme Louzada Silva Meira, Egbert Tannich, Kristie Aimi Yamamoto, Marilia Sá Carvalho, Renata Saraiva Pedro, Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, Daniel Cadar, Davis Fernandes Ferreira, Nildimar Alves Honório |
| Abstract |
During 2014-2016, we conducted mosquito-based Zika virus surveillance in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Results suggest that Zika virus was probably introduced into the area during May-November 2013 via multiple in-country sources. Furthermore, our results strengthen the hypothesis that Zika virus in the Americas originated in Brazil during October 2012-May 2013. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 4 | 44% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 11% |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
| Scientists | 3 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 31 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,543,881
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#2,633
of 9,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,392
of 326,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#46
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th 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 72% 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 326,133 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 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 61% of its contemporaries.