↓ Skip to main content

Spatial repellents: from discovery and development to evidence-based validation

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
156 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 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
Spatial repellents: from discovery and development to evidence-based validation
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-11-164
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole L Achee, Michael J Bangs, Robert Farlow, Gerry F Killeen, Steve Lindsay, James G Logan, Sarah J Moore, Mark Rowland, Kevin Sweeney, Steve J Torr, Laurence J Zwiebel, John P Grieco

Abstract

International public health workers are challenged by a burden of arthropod-borne disease that remains elevated despite best efforts in control programmes. With this challenge comes the opportunity to develop novel vector control paradigms to guide product development and programme implementation. The role of vector behaviour modification in disease control was first highlighted several decades ago but has received limited attention within the public health community. This paper presents current evidence highlighting the value of sub-lethal agents, specifically spatial repellents, and their use in global health, and identifies the primary challenges towards establishing a clearly defined and recommended role for spatial repellent products in disease control.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 212 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 22%
Student > Master 34 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 4%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 35 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 86 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 8%
Environmental Science 13 6%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Other 33 15%
Unknown 42 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,245,805
of 17,351,915 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#248
of 4,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,332
of 132,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,351,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 132,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them