↓ Skip to main content

Investments in tuberculosis research – what are the gaps?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Investments in tuberculosis research – what are the gaps?
Published in
BMC Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0644-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mishal S. Khan, Helen Fletcher, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine TB Centre Steering Committee, Richard Coker

Abstract

Through decades of research, numerous studies have generated robust evidence about effective interventions for tuberculosis control. Yet, the global annual decline in incidence of approximately 1 % is evidence that current approaches and investment strategies are not sufficient. In this article, we assess recent tuberculosis research funding and discuss two critical gaps in funding and in scientific evidence from topics that have been left off the research priority agenda.We first examine research and development funding goals in the 2011-2015 Global Plan to Stop Tuberculosis and analyze disbursements to different research areas by funders worldwide in 2014. We then summarize, through a compilation of published literature and consultation with 35 researchers across multiple disciplines in the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine TB Centre, priorities identified by the tuberculosis research community. Finally, we compare researchers' priority areas to the global funding agendas and activities.Our analysis shows that, among the five key research areas defined in the 2011-2015 Global Plan - namely drugs, basic science, vaccines, diagnostics and operational research - drug discovery and basic science on Mycobacterium tuberculosis accounted for 60 % of the $2 billion annual funding target. None of the research areas received the recommended level of funding. Operational research, which had the lowest target, received 66 % of its target funding, whereas new diagnostics received only 19 %. Although many of the priority research questions identified by researchers fell within the Global Plan categories, our analysis highlights important areas that are not explicitly mentioned in the current plan. These priority research areas included improved understanding of tuberculosis transmission dynamics, the role of social protection and social determinants, and health systems and policy research.While research priorities are increasingly important in light of the limited funding for tuberculosis, there is a risk that we neglect important research areas and encourage the formation of research silos. To ensure that funding priorities, researchers' agendas and national tuberculosis control policies are better coordinated, there should be more, and wider, dialogue between stakeholders in high tuberculosis burden countries, researchers, international policymakers and funders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Master 16 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 19 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 28 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,546,167
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,087
of 3,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,680
of 340,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#15
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 340,306 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 68% of its contemporaries.