↓ Skip to main content

Glanders: an overview of infection in humans

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2013
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 (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
patent
2 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Glanders: an overview of infection in humans
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-8-131
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristopher E Van Zandt, Marek T Greer, H Carl Gelhaus

Abstract

Glanders is a highly contagious and often fatal zoonotic disease, primarily of solipds. In the developed world, glanders has been eradicated. However, prior use of B. mallei as a biological weapon and its high mortality in inhalation animal studies has affirmed B. mallei as a biodefense concern. This threat requires the development of new glanders medical countermeasures (MCMs), as there is a lack of an effective vaccine and lengthy courses of multiple antibiotics needed to eradicate B. mallei. Here, we present a literature review of human glanders in which we discuss the clinical epidemiology and risk factors, potential routes of exposure, symptoms, the incubation period, and specific diagnostics. This review focuses on pulmonary glanders, as this is the most likely outcome of a biological weapons attack. Additionally, we outline current treatment regimens and propose a clinical definition of human pulmonary glanders infection.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 112 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Researcher 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Other 7 6%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 24%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 18 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 4%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 25 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 December 2019.
All research outputs
#3,301,191
of 17,360,236 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#405
of 1,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,664
of 170,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#5
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,360,236 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 170,380 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 90% of its contemporaries.