↓ Skip to main content

The Case for Reactive Mass Oral Cholera Vaccinations

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, January 2011
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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 Case for Reactive Mass Oral Cholera Vaccinations
Published in
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, January 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000952
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rita Reyburn, Jacqueline L. Deen, Rebecca F. Grais, Sujit K. Bhattacharya, Dipika Sur, Anna L. Lopez, Mohamed S. Jiddawi, John D. Clemens, Lorenz von Seidlein

Abstract

The outbreak of cholera in Zimbabwe intensified interest in the control and prevention of cholera. While there is agreement that safe water, sanitation, and personal hygiene are ideal for the long term control of cholera, there is controversy about the role of newer approaches such as oral cholera vaccines (OCVs). In October 2009 the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts advised the World Health Organization to consider reactive vaccination campaigns in response to large cholera outbreaks. To evaluate the potential benefit of this pivotal change in WHO policy, we used existing data from cholera outbreaks to simulate the number of cholera cases preventable by reactive mass vaccination.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Unknown 113 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 13 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Engineering 5 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 4%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 23 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 01 December 2014.
All research outputs
#804,282
of 14,578,375 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#754
of 6,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,753
of 71,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#8
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,578,375 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 71,167 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.