↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of Chagas disease in the Bolivian population of Majorca (Spain)

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Prevalence of Chagas disease in the Bolivian population of Majorca (Spain)
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, July 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2015.03.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Favila Escobio, Joana Ribas, Marta G. Morillo, Ginna Rodríguez-Ramírez, Jeronima Vicens-Ferrer, Magdalena Esteva

Abstract

To establish the prevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in Bolivian (Spain) participants. A cross sectional study was carried out in Majorca. Bolivian residents older than 18 years assigned to the family physicians of two primary care centers were randomly selected from the health card population database. Participants were invited to attend a serology test and an interview. T. cruzi infection was confirmed after two positive ELISA tests. If the result was positive or dubious, the serological test was sent to the National Microbiology Center for confirmation. A total of 251 participants were included (response rate 36.3%). The overall seroprevalence of Chagas infection was 19.1% (95% CI: 14.06-24.19). Seroprevalence was higher in participants from highly endemic provinces, those from rural areas, those who had lived in mud houses, and in those whose mother or a family member had contracted this infection. This study demonstrates a high prevalence of T. cruzi in Bolivian residents, which was strongly associated with established risk factors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 22%
Student > Master 7 15%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Engineering 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 12 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,225,632
of 12,519,100 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#242
of 479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,706
of 234,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,519,100 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 479 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 234,516 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.