| Title |
Surveillance for Mosquitoborne Transmission of Zika Virus, New York City, NY, USA, 2016 - Volume 24, Number 5—May 2018 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2405.170764 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amanda Wahnich, Sandhya Clark, Danielle Bloch, Hannah Kubinson, Gili Hrusa, Dakai Liu, Jennifer L. Rakeman, Bisram Deocharan, Lucretia Jones, Sally Slavinski, Alaina Stoute, Robert Mathes, Don Weiss, Erin E. Conners |
| Abstract |
A large number of imported cases of Zika virus infection and the potential for transmission by Aedes albopictus mosquitoes prompted the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to conduct sentinel, enhanced passive, and syndromic surveillance for locally acquired mosquitoborne Zika virus infections in New York City, NY, USA, during June-October 2016. Suspected case-patients were those >5 years of age without a travel history or sexual exposure who had >3 compatible signs/symptoms (arthralgia, fever, conjunctivitis, or rash). We identified 15 suspected cases and tested urine samples for Zika virus by using real-time reverse transcription PCR; all results were negative. We identified 308 emergency department visits for Zika-like illness, 40,073 visits for fever, and 17 unique spatiotemporal clusters of visits for fever. We identified no evidence of local transmission. Our experience offers possible surveillance tools for jurisdictions concerned about local mosquitoborne Zika virus or other arboviral transmission. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 26% |
| Researcher | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 16 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,980,451
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#7,485
of 9,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,951
of 326,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#93
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 326,167 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.