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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Has the DOTS Strategy Improved Case Finding or Treatment Success? An Empirical Assessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0001721 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ziad Obermeyer, Jesse Abbott-Klafter, Christopher J. L. Murray |
| Abstract |
Nearly fifteen years after the start of WHO's DOTS strategy, tuberculosis remains a major global health problem. Given the lack of empirical evidence that DOTS reduces tuberculosis burden, considerable debate has arisen about its place in the future of global tuberculosis control efforts. An independent evaluation of DOTS, one of the most widely-implemented and longest-running interventions in global health, is a prerequisite for meaningful improvements to tuberculosis control efforts, including WHO's new Stop TB Strategy. We investigate the impact of the expansion of the DOTS strategy on tuberculosis case finding and treatment success, using only empirical data. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 3 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
| Tunisia | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 170 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 48 | 26% |
| Researcher | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 70 | 38% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 25 | 14% |
| Unknown | 32 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#4,697,128
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#64,146
of 194,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,768
of 79,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#116
of 278 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,543 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 79,897 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 278 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 53% of its contemporaries.