↓ Skip to main content

Fake anti-malarials: start with the facts

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 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
Fake anti-malarials: start with the facts
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1096-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harparkash Kaur, Siȃn Clarke, Mirza Lalani, Souly Phanouvong, Philippe Guérin, Andrew McLoughlin, Benjamin K. Wilson, Michael Deats, Aline Plançon, Heidi Hopkins, Debora Miranda, David Schellenberg

Abstract

This meeting report presents the key findings and discussion points of a 1-day meeting entitled 'Fake anti-malarials: start with the facts' held on 28th May 2015, in Geneva, Switzerland, to disseminate the findings of the artemisinin combination therapy consortium's drug quality programme. The teams purchased over 10,000 samples, using representative sampling approaches, from six malaria endemic countries: Equatorial Guinea (Bioko Island), Cambodia, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda and Tanzania. Laboratory analyses of these samples showed that falsified anti-malarials (<8 %) were found in just two of the countries, whilst substandard artemisinin-based combinations were present in all six countries and, artemisinin-based monotherapy tablets are still available in some places despite the fact that the WHO has urged regulatory authorities in malaria-endemic countries to take measures to halt the production and marketing of these oral monotherapies since 2007. This report summarizes the presentations that reviewed the public health impact of falsified and substandard drugs, sampling strategies, techniques for drug quality analysis, approaches to strengthen health systems capacity for the surveillance of drug quality, and the ensuing discussion points from the dissemination meeting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 124 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 31 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 37 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,079,894
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,439
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,073
of 410,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#33
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 410,805 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.