↓ Skip to main content

Building the Evidence Base for the Prevention of Raw Milk-Acquired Brucellosis: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, March 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Building the Evidence Base for the Prevention of Raw Milk-Acquired Brucellosis: A Systematic Review
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2020
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adetunji, Shakirat A., Ramirez, Gilbert, Ficht, Allison R., Perez, Ligia, Foster, Margaret J., Arenas-Gamboa, Angela M., Adetunji, Shakirat A, Ficht, Allison R, Foster, Margaret J, Arenas-Gamboa, Angela M

Abstract

Background: The scientific evidence of the health risks associated with the consumption of raw milk has been known for a long time. However, less clear is the impact of acquiring infectious diseases from raw milk consumption in the United States (US) due to incomplete reporting of cases and the complex factors associated with the sale and consumption of raw milk. Investigations of this current study focused on human brucellosis, one of the infectious diseases commonly acquired through the consumption of raw milk and milk products, and which continues to be a public health threat worldwide. Methodology: A qualitative systematic review of the sources of opinions that contribute to the increased trend of raw milk sales and consumption in the US was conducted. Results: Interestingly, opinions about the sale of raw milk and/or the benefits arising from its consumption varied by US region, with the proportion of messages supporting raw milk consumption being highest in the Northeast compared to other US regions. Several evidence gaps and factors that possibly contribute to the increased prevalence of raw milk-acquired brucellosis were identified including inadequate monitoring of the raw milk sales process and lack of approved diagnostic methods for validating the safety of raw milk for human consumption. Conclusions: The unavailability of data specifying brucellosis cases acquired from raw milk consumption have precluded the direct association between raw milk and increased brucellosis prevalence in the United States. Nevertheless, the evidence gaps identified in this study demonstrate the need for intensified surveillance of raw-milk acquired infectious diseases including human brucellosis; establishment of safety and quality control measures for the process of selling raw milk; and design of an effective strategy for the prevention of raw milk-acquired infectious diseases including brucellosis. Overall, for the first time, this study has not only shown the gaps in evidence that require future investigations, but also, variations in the perception of raw milk consumption that may impact disease acquisition in different US regions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Unspecified 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 11 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 13 59%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 March 2020.
All research outputs
#16,481,066
of 25,042,800 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#5,209
of 13,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,802
of 369,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#66
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,042,800 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 369,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.