↓ Skip to main content

Viral etiologies of lower respiratory tract infections among Egyptian children under five years of age

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2012
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Viral etiologies of lower respiratory tract infections among Egyptian children under five years of age
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-12-350
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline F Shafik, Emad W Mohareb, Aymen S Yassin, Madgy A Amin, Amani El Kholy, Hanaa El-Karaksy, Fouad G Youssef

Abstract

Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) are responsible for a considerable number of deaths among children, particularly in developing countries. In Egypt and the Middle East region, there is a lack of data regarding the viral causes of LRTI. In this study, we aimed to identify the relative prevalence of various respiratory viruses that contribute to LRTIs in young children. Although, nucleic acid-based methods have gained importance as a sensitive tool to determine the viral infections, their use is limited because of their prohibitive cost in low-income countries. Therefore, we applied three different laboratory methods, and presented the different virus prevalence patterns detected by each method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 88 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 26 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 14 November 2015.
All research outputs
#3,177,644
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,047
of 7,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,341
of 278,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#16
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 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 278,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.