| Title |
Real-Time Surveillance in Emergencies Using the Early Warning Alert and Response Network - Volume 23, Supplement—December 2017 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2313.170446 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristina M. Cordes, Susan T. Cookson, Andrew T. Boyd, Colleen Hardy, Mamunur Rahman Malik, Peter Mala, Khalid El Tahir, Marthe Everard, Mohamad Jasiem, Farah Husain |
| Abstract |
Humanitarian emergencies often result in population displacement and increase the risk for transmission of communicable diseases. To address the increased risk for outbreaks during humanitarian emergencies, the World Health Organization developed the Early Warning Alert and Response Network (EWARN) for early detection of epidemic-prone diseases. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has worked with the World Health Organization, ministries of health, and other partners to support EWARN through the implementation and evaluation of these systems and the development of standardized guidance. Although protocols have been developed for the implementation and evaluation of EWARN, a need persists for standardized training and additional guidance on supporting these systems remotely when access to affected areas is restricted. Continued collaboration between partners and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for surveillance during emergencies is necessary to strengthen capacity and support global health security. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 | 16 | 40% |
| Australia | 2 | 5% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 3% |
| Rwanda | 1 | 3% |
| China | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Georgia | 1 | 3% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 15% |
| Scientists | 4 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 20% |
| Researcher | 17 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,239,326
of 25,243,120 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,389
of 9,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,265
of 336,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#23
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,243,120 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,708 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 336,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.