↓ Skip to main content

Assembling evidence for identifying reservoirs of infection

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, May 2014
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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
167 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
439 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
Assembling evidence for identifying reservoirs of infection
Published in
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, May 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2014.03.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mafalda Viana, Rebecca Mancy, Roman Biek, Sarah Cleaveland, Paul C. Cross, James O. Lloyd-Smith, Daniel T. Haydon

Abstract

Many pathogens persist in multihost systems, making the identification of infection reservoirs crucial for devising effective interventions. Here, we present a conceptual framework for classifying patterns of incidence and prevalence, and review recent scientific advances that allow us to study and manage reservoirs simultaneously. We argue that interventions can have a crucial role in enriching our mechanistic understanding of how reservoirs function and should be embedded as quasi-experimental studies in adaptive management frameworks. Single approaches to the study of reservoirs are unlikely to generate conclusive insights whereas the formal integration of data and methodologies, involving interventions, pathogen genetics, and contemporary surveillance techniques, promises to open up new opportunities to advance understanding of complex multihost systems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 439 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 8 2%
United States 7 2%
France 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 414 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 96 22%
Researcher 87 20%
Student > Master 74 17%
Student > Bachelor 33 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 5%
Other 80 18%
Unknown 46 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 190 43%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 49 11%
Environmental Science 38 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 5%
Other 41 9%
Unknown 73 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 31 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,631,781
of 21,446,675 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#960
of 2,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,576
of 205,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#15
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,446,675 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,895 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 205,805 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.