↓ Skip to main content

An In-Depth Analysis of a Piece of Shit: Distribution of Schistosoma mansoni and Hookworm Eggs in Human Stool

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 4,306)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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 In-Depth Analysis of a Piece of Shit: Distribution of Schistosoma mansoni and Hookworm Eggs in Human Stool
Published in
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, December 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001969
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefanie J. Krauth, Jean T. Coulibaly, Stefanie Knopp, Mahamadou Traoré, Eliézer K. N'Goran, Jürg Utzinger, Krauth SJ, Coulibaly JT, Knopp S, Traoré M, N'goran EK, Utzinger J

Abstract

An accurate diagnosis of helminth infection is important to improve patient management. However, there is considerable intra- and inter-specimen variation of helminth egg counts in human feces. Homogenization of stool samples has been suggested to improve diagnostic accuracy, but there are no detailed investigations. Rapid disintegration of hookworm eggs constitutes another problem in epidemiological surveys. We studied the spatial distribution of Schistosoma mansoni and hookworm eggs in stool samples, the effect of homogenization, and determined egg counts over time in stool samples stored under different conditions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 985 tweeters 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 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 13 5%
Germany 7 3%
United Kingdom 6 2%
Brazil 4 2%
Netherlands 3 1%
France 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Other 8 3%
Unknown 214 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 82 31%
Researcher 73 28%
Student > Master 34 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 7%
Other 37 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 160 61%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 4%
Chemistry 10 4%
Physics and Astronomy 8 3%
Other 42 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 982. 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 12 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,691
of 7,921,794 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#1
of 4,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34
of 295,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#1
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,921,794 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 295,504 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.