↓ Skip to main content

Revisiting typhoid fever surveillance in low and middle income countries: lessons from systematic literature review of population-based longitudinal studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 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
Revisiting typhoid fever surveillance in low and middle income countries: lessons from systematic literature review of population-based longitudinal studies
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1351-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vittal Mogasale, Vijayalaxmi V. Mogasale, Enusa Ramani, Jung Seok Lee, Ju Yeon Park, Kang Sung Lee, Thomas F. Wierzba

Abstract

The control of typhoid fever being an important public health concern in low and middle income countries, improving typhoid surveillance will help in planning and implementing typhoid control activities such as deployment of new generation Vi conjugate typhoid vaccines. We conducted a systematic literature review of longitudinal population-based blood culture-confirmed typhoid fever studies from low and middle income countries published from 1(st) January 1990 to 31(st) December 2013. We quantitatively summarized typhoid fever incidence rates and qualitatively reviewed study methodology that could have influenced rate estimates. We used meta-analysis approach based on random effects model in summarizing the hospitalization rates. Twenty-two papers presented longitudinal population-based and blood culture-confirmed typhoid fever incidence estimates from 20 distinct sites in low and middle income countries. The reported incidence and hospitalizations rates were heterogeneous as well as the study methodology across the sites. We elucidated how the incidence rates were underestimated in published studies. We summarized six categories of under-estimation biases observed in these studies and presented potential solutions. Published longitudinal typhoid fever studies in low and middle income countries are geographically clustered and the methodology employed has a potential for underestimation. Future studies should account for these limitations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 11%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 59 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 62 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 April 2017.
All research outputs
#6,412,351
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,004
of 7,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,812
of 396,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#28
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 396,350 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 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 72% of its contemporaries.