↓ Skip to main content

Target prioritization and strategy selection for active case-finding of pulmonary tuberculosis: a tool to support country-level project planning

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
Title
Target prioritization and strategy selection for active case-finding of pulmonary tuberculosis: a tool to support country-level project planning
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-13-97
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nobuyuki Nishikiori, Catharina Van Weezenbeek

Abstract

Despite the progress made in the past decade, tuberculosis (TB) control still faces significant challenges. In many countries with declining TB incidence, the disease tends to concentrate in vulnerable populations that often have limited access to health care. In light of the limitations of the current case-finding approach and the global urgency to improve case detection, active case-finding (ACF) has been suggested as an important complementary strategy to accelerate tuberculosis control especially among high-risk populations. The present exercise aims to develop a model that can be used for county-level project planning.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
South Africa 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Cambodia 1 <1%
Rwanda 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 178 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 25%
Student > Master 34 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Other 18 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 25 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 10%
Social Sciences 16 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 35 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 March 2013.
All research outputs
#1,500,757
of 3,628,883 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,212
of 4,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,334
of 281,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#193
of 349 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,628,883 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 57th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 281,130 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 349 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.