↓ Skip to main content

MERS-CoV at the Animal–Human Interface: Inputs on Exposure Pathways from an Expert-Opinion Elicitation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
MERS-CoV at the Animal–Human Interface: Inputs on Exposure Pathways from an Expert-Opinion Elicitation
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2016.00088
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna L. Funk, Flavie Luce Goutard, Eve Miguel, Mathieu Bourgarel, Veronique Chevalier, Bernard Faye, J. S. Malik Peiris, Maria D. Van Kerkhove, Francois Louis Roger

Abstract

Nearly 4 years after the first report of the emergence of Middle-East respiratory syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and nearly 1800 human cases later, the ecology of MERS-CoV, its epidemiology, and more than risk factors of MERS-CoV transmission between camels are poorly understood. Knowledge about the pathways and mechanisms of transmission from animals to humans is limited; as of yet, transmission risks have not been quantified. Moreover the divergent sanitary situations and exposures to animals among populations in the Arabian Peninsula, where human primary cases appear to dominate, vs. other regions in the Middle East and Africa, with no reported human clinical cases and where the virus has been detected only in dromedaries, represents huge scientific and health challenges. Here, we have used expert-opinion elicitation in order to obtain ideas on relative importance of MERS-CoV risk factors and estimates of transmission risks from various types of contact between humans and dromedaries. Fourteen experts with diverse and extensive experience in MERS-CoV relevant fields were enrolled and completed an online questionnaire that examined pathways based on several scenarios, e.g., camels-camels, camels-human, bats/other species to camels/humans, and the role of diverse biological substances (milk, urine, etc.) and potential fomites. Experts believed that dromedary camels play the largest role in MERS-CoV infection of other dromedaries; however, they also indicated a significant influence of the season (i.e. calving or weaning periods) on transmission risk. All experts thought that MERS-CoV-infected dromedaries and asymptomatic humans play the most important role in infection of humans, with bats and other species presenting a possible, but yet undefined, risk. Direct and indirect contact of humans with dromedary camels were identified as the most risky types of contact, when compared to consumption of various camel products, with estimated "most likely" incidence risks of at least 22 and 13% for direct and indirect contact, respectively. The results of our study are consistent with available, yet very limited, published data regarding the potential pathways of transmission of MERS-CoV at the animal-human interface. These results identify key knowledge gaps and highlight the need for more comprehensive, yet focused research to be conducted to better understand transmission between dromedaries and humans.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 24%
Student > Master 15 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 4 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 26 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 32 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,818,975
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,176
of 6,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,123
of 319,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#9
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,275 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 done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 319,501 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.