↓ Skip to main content

The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Infectious Diseases, May 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 10,798)
  • 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)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
13 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
163 tweeters
facebook
38 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
251 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
336 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
The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review
Published in
Journal of Infectious Diseases, May 2004
DOI 10.1086/377712
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert T. Perry, Neal A. Halsey

Abstract

Forty years after effective vaccines were licensed, measles continues to cause death and severe disease in children worldwide. Complications from measles can occur in almost every organ system. Pneumonia, croup, and encephalitis are common causes of death; encephalitis is the most common cause of long-term sequelae. Measles remains a common cause of blindness in developing countries. Complication rates are higher in those <5 and >20 years old, although croup and otitis media are more common in those <2 years old and encephalitis in older children and adults. Complication rates are increased by immune deficiency disorders, malnutrition, vitamin A deficiency, intense exposures to measles, and lack of previous measles vaccination. Case-fatality rates have decreased with improvements in socioeconomic status in many countries but remain high in developing countries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 163 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 336 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Japan 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 320 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 21%
Student > Bachelor 58 17%
Researcher 54 16%
Student > Postgraduate 32 10%
Unspecified 29 9%
Other 91 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 159 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 14%
Unspecified 42 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 16 5%
Other 53 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 305. 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 20 July 2019.
All research outputs
#37,156
of 13,262,194 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#31
of 10,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,395
of 12,626,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#31
of 10,631 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,262,194 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 10,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. 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 12,626,409 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 10,631 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.