↓ Skip to main content

Developing standards for malaria microscopy: external competency assessment for malaria microscopists in the Asia-Pacific

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
43 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.
Title
Developing standards for malaria microscopy: external competency assessment for malaria microscopists in the Asia-Pacific
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-11-352
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sania Ashraf, Angie Kao, Cecilia Hugo, Eva M Christophel, Bayo Fatunmbi, Jennifer Luchavez, Ken Lilley, David Bell

Abstract

Malaria diagnosis has received renewed interest in recent years, associated with the increasing accessibility of accurate diagnosis through the introduction of rapid diagnostic tests and new World Health Organization guidelines recommending parasite-based diagnosis prior to anti-malarial therapy. However, light microscopy, established over 100 years ago and frequently considered the reference standard for clinical diagnosis, has been neglected in control programmes and in the malaria literature and evidence suggests field standards are commonly poor. Microscopy remains the most accessible method for parasite quantitation, for drug efficacy monitoring, and as a reference of assessing other diagnostic tools. This mismatch between quality and need highlights the importance of the establishment of reliable standards and procedures for assessing and assuring quality. This paper describes the development, function and impact of a multi-country microscopy external quality assurance network set up for this purpose in Asia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 23%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 9 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 February 2013.
All research outputs
#7,858,260
of 12,524,647 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,735
of 3,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,753
of 142,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,524,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,658 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 142,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.