↓ Skip to main content

Laboratory capacity for diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease in Eastern Africa: implications for the progressive control pathway

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Laboratory capacity for diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease in Eastern Africa: implications for the progressive control pathway
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-6148-9-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alice Namatovu, Sabenzia Nabalayo Wekesa, Kirsten Tjørnehøj, Moses Tefula Dhikusooka, Vincent B Muwanika, Hans Redlef Siegsmund, Chrisostom Ayebazibwe

Abstract

Accurate diagnosis is pertinent to any disease control programme. If Eastern Africa is to work towards control of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) using the Progressive Control Pathway for FMD (PCP-FMD) as a tool, then the capacity of national reference laboratories (NRLs) mandated to diagnose FMD should match this task. This study assessed the laboratory capacity of 14 NRLs of the Eastern Africa Region Laboratory Network member countries using a semi-structured questionnaire and retrospective data from the World Reference Laboratory for FMD annual reports and Genbank® through National Centre for Biotechnology Information for the period 2006-2010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 120 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 21%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 28 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 25%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 22 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 11%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 32 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2013.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#2,455
of 3,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,794
of 286,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#68
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,087 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 286,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.