↓ Skip to main content

Deployable Laboratory Response to Influenza Pandemic; PCR Assay Field Trials and Comparison with Reference Methods

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Deployable Laboratory Response to Influenza Pandemic; PCR Assay Field Trials and Comparison with Reference Methods
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0025526
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy J. J. Inglis, Adam J. Merritt, Avram Levy, Patricia Vietheer, Richard Bradbury, Adam Scholler, Glenys Chidlow, David W. Smith

Abstract

The influenza A/H1N1/09 pandemic spread quickly during the Southern Hemisphere winter in 2009 and reached epidemic proportions within weeks of the official WHO alert. Vulnerable population groups included indigenous Australians and remote northern population centres visited by international travellers. At the height of the Australian epidemic a large number of troops converged on a training area in northern Australia for an international exercise, raising concerns about their potential exposure to the emerging influenza threat before, during and immediately after their arrival in the area. Influenza A/H1N1/09 became the dominant seasonal variant and returned to Australia during the Southern winter the following year.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Australia 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 33 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Professor 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 11 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Psychology 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Engineering 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 October 2011.
All research outputs
#15,236,094
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#129,732
of 193,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,215
of 135,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,668
of 2,569 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 135,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,569 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.