↓ Skip to main content

An exploratory GIS-based method to identify and characterise landscapes with an elevated epidemiological risk of Rhodesian human African trypanosomiasis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
An exploratory GIS-based method to identify and characterise landscapes with an elevated epidemiological risk of Rhodesian human African trypanosomiasis
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-12-316
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola A Wardrop, Eric M Fèvre, Peter M Atkinson, Abbas SL Kakembo, Susan C Welburn

Abstract

Specific land cover types and activities have been correlated with Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense distributions, indicating the importance of landscape for epidemiological risk. However, methods proposed to identify specific areas with elevated epidemiological risk (i.e. where transmission is more likely to occur) tend to be costly and time consuming. This paper proposes an exploratory spatial analysis using geo-referenced human African trypanosomiasis (HAT) cases and matched controls from Serere hospital, Uganda (December 1998 to November 2002) to identify areas with an elevated epidemiological risk of HAT.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 10 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,256,901
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,429
of 7,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,203
of 275,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#76
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 275,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.