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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Clinical development of placental malaria vaccines and immunoassays harmonization: a workshop report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12936-016-1527-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arnaud Chêne, Sophie Houard, Morten A. Nielsen, Sophia Hundt, Flavia D’Alessio, Sodiomon B. Sirima, Adrian J. F. Luty, Patrick Duffy, Odile Leroy, Benoit Gamain, Nicola K. Viebig |
| Abstract |
Placental malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum infection constitutes a major health problem manifesting as severe disease and anaemia in the mother, impaired fetal development, low birth weight or spontaneous abortion. Prevention of placental malaria currently relies on two key strategies that are losing efficacy due to spread of resistance: long-lasting insecticide-treated nets and intermittent preventive treatment during pregnancy. A placental malaria vaccine would be an attractive, cost-effective complement to the existing control tools. Two placental malaria vaccine candidates are currently in Phase Ia/b clinical trials. During two workshops hosted by the European Vaccine Initiative, one in Paris in April 2014 and the other in Brussels in November 2014, the main actors in placental malaria vaccine research discussed the harmonization of clinical development plans and of the immunoassays with a goal to define standards that will allow comparative assessment of different placental malaria vaccine candidates. The recommendations of these workshops should guide researchers and clinicians in the further development of placental malaria vaccines. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 25% |
| Belgium | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 92 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 16% |
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 31 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 33 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 November 2016.
All research outputs
#5,907,181
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,538
of 5,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,789
of 320,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#33
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 320,716 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.