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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Reproducibility of African giant pouched rats detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-017-2347-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Haylee Ellis, Christiaan Mulder, Emilio Valverde, Alan Poling, Timothy Edwards |
| Abstract |
African pouched rats sniffing sputum samples provided by local clinics have significantly increased tuberculosis case findings in Tanzania and Mozambique. The objective of this study was to determine the reproducibility of rat results. Over an 18-month period 11,869 samples were examined by the rats. Intra-rater reliability was assessed through Yule's Q. Inter-rater reliability was assessed with Krippendorff's alpha. Intra-rater reliability was high, with a mean Yule's Q of 0.9. Inter-rater agreement was fair, with Krippendorf's alpha ranging from 0.15 to 0.45. Both Intra- and Inter-rater reliability was independent of the sex of the animals, but they were positively correlated with age. Both intra- and inter-rater agreement was lowest for samples designated as smear-negative by the clinics. Overall, the reproducibility of tuberculosis detection rat results was fair and diagnostic results were therefore independent of the rats used. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 18% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#2,694,216
of 24,625,114 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#830
of 8,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,770
of 314,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#29
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,625,114 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,244 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 well, scoring higher than 89% 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 314,426 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.