↓ Skip to main content

Development of new malaria diagnostics: matching performance and need

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Development of new malaria diagnostics: matching performance and need
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1454-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Bell, Alessandra E. Fleurent, Michael C. Hegg, John D. Boomgard, Caitlin C. McConnico

Abstract

Despite advances in diagnostic technology, significant gaps remain in access to malaria diagnosis. Accurate diagnosis and misdiagnosis leads to unnecessary waste of resources, poor disease management, and contributes to a cycle of poverty in low-resourced communities. Despite much effort and investment, few new technologies have reached the field in the last 30 years aside from lateral flow assays. This suggests that much diagnostic development effort has been misdirected, and/or that there are fundamental blocks to introduction of new technologies. Malaria diagnosis is a difficult market; resources are broadly donor-dependent, health systems in endemic countries are frequently weak, and the epidemiology of malaria and priorities of malaria programmes and donors are evolving. Success in diagnostic development will require a good understanding of programme gaps, and the sustainability of markets to address them. Targeting assay development to such clearly defined market requirements will improve the outcomes of product development funding. Six market segments are identified: (1) case management in low-resourced countries, (2) parasite screening for low density infections in elimination programmes, (3) surveillance for evidence of continued transmission, (4) clinical research and therapeutic efficacy monitoring, (5) cross-checking for microscopy quality control, and (6) returned traveller markets distinguished primarily by resource availability. While each of these markets is potentially compelling from a public health standpoint, size and scale are highly variable and continue to evolve. Consequently, return on investment in research and development may be limited, highlighting the need for potentially significant donor involvement or the introduction of novel business models to overcome prohibitive economics. Given the rather specific applications, a well-defined set of stakeholders will need to be on board for the successful introduction and scaling of any new technology to these markets.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 25%
Student > Master 10 16%
Unspecified 8 13%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 16%
Unspecified 10 16%
Engineering 9 14%
Other 14 22%

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 25 April 2017.
All research outputs
#4,888,476
of 9,724,738 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,061
of 3,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,716
of 261,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#100
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,724,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,285 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 261,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.