↓ Skip to main content

A Revival of Epidemiological Entomology in Senegal

Overview of attention for article published in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
A Revival of Epidemiological Entomology in Senegal
Published in
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, May 2018
DOI 10.4269/ajtmh.18-0162
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerry F. Killeen

Abstract

The term epidemiological entomology was first coined by Garrett-Jones over half a century ago1 but has been out of fashion for far too long.2 In this issue, Sougoufara et al.3 illustrate clearly just how insightful such an approach can be when applied to characterizing key properties of a dynamic malaria transmission system before and after the scale-up of vector control with long-lasting insecticidal nets in Dielmo, Senegal. Using simple analytical models first pioneered by Garrett-Jones himself,4 these authors illustrate how not all may be as it appears based on direct interpretation of entomological data alone. Allowing for the fact that malaria transmission requires both humans and mosquitoes to meet at the same time and place, they show that insecticidal bed nets failed to provide direct personal protection against more than one-third of inoculation events at the outset. Even more worryingly, they demonstrate that this gap in personal protection is growing as mosquitoes adapt to bed nets as a normal part of their environment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Librarian 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 18%
Computer Science 1 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 9%
Other 2 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 July 2019.
All research outputs
#8,216,128
of 15,377,318 outputs
Outputs from The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
#5,605
of 7,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,933
of 279,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
#52
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,377,318 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 279,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.