The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Rapid diagnostic tests versus clinical diagnosis for managing people with fever in malaria endemic settings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008998.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Odaga, David Sinclair, Joseph A Lokong, Sarah Donegan, Heidi Hopkins, Paul Garner |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 9% |
| Sweden | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 82% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 385 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nigeria | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Thailand | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 371 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 79 | 21% |
| Researcher | 50 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 31 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 8% |
| Other | 84 | 22% |
| Unknown | 74 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 141 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 27 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 3% |
| Other | 57 | 15% |
| Unknown | 93 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,930,242
of 26,378,648 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,928
of 13,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,251
of 239,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#75
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,378,648 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 13,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 239,993 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 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 65% of its contemporaries.