↓ Skip to main content

The capacity of diagnostic laboratories in Kenya for detecting infectious diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Tropical Medicine and Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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 capacity of diagnostic laboratories in Kenya for detecting infectious diseases
Published in
Tropical Medicine and Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41182-017-0049-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

H-C Slotved, Kennedy K. Yatich, Shem Otoi Sam, Edwardina Otieno Ndhine

Abstract

The aim of this study is to present data of the diagnostic capacity of Kenyan laboratories to diagnose a number of human pathogens. The study is based on the data obtained from a biosecurity survey conducted in Kenya in 2014/2015 and data from the Statistical Abstract of Kenya for 2015. The biosecurity survey has previously been published; however, the survey also included information on laboratory capacity to handle a number of pathogens, which have not been published. Data were retrieved from the survey on 86 laboratory facilities. The data include information from relevant categories such as training laboratories, human diagnostic laboratories, veterinary diagnostic laboratories, and research laboratories. The disease incidence in Kenya ranges widely from malaria and diarrhea with an incidence rate of around 10.000 per year to diseases such as cholera and yellow fever with an incidence rate of 1 per year or less for all age groups. The data showed that diseases with the highest number of diagnostic facilities were mainly malaria-, HIV-, tuberculosis-, and diarrhea-related infectious diseases. The study generally shows that the laboratory facilities have the capacity of detecting the infectious diseases with the highest incidence rates. Furthermore, it seems that the number of facilities able to detect a particular disease is related to the incidence rate of the disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 27%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Tropical Medicine and Health
#237
of 441 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,377
of 324,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tropical Medicine and Health
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 441 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 324,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.