↓ Skip to main content

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of mass screening and treatment for reducing Plasmodium falciparum malaria burden

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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
Modelling the cost-effectiveness of mass screening and treatment for reducing Plasmodium falciparum malaria burden
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-12-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie Crowell, Olivier JT Briët, Diggory Hardy, Nakul Chitnis, Nicolas Maire, Aurelio Di Pasquale, Thomas A Smith

Abstract

Past experience and modelling suggest that, in most cases, mass treatment strategies are not likely to succeed in interrupting Plasmodium falciparum malaria transmission. However, this does not preclude their use to reduce disease burden. Mass screening and treatment (MSAT) is preferred to mass drug administration (MDA), as the latter involves massive over-use of drugs. This paper reports simulations of the incremental cost-effectiveness of well-conducted MSAT campaigns as a strategy for P. falciparum malaria disease-burden reduction in settings with varying receptivity (ability of the combined vector population in a setting to transmit disease) and access to case management.

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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Philippines 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 140 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 19%
Student > Master 22 15%
Other 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 4%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 23 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 14%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 30 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 January 2013.
All research outputs
#16,159,916
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,341
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,907
of 290,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#57
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 290,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.