↓ Skip to main content

First meeting “Cystic echinococcosis in Chile, update in alternatives for control and diagnostics in animals and humans”

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
First meeting “Cystic echinococcosis in Chile, update in alternatives for control and diagnostics in animals and humans”
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13071-016-1792-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristian A. Alvarez Rojas, Fernando Fredes, Marisa Torres, Gerardo Acosta-Jamett, Juan Francisco Alvarez, Carlos Pavletic, Rodolfo Paredes, Sandra Cortés

Abstract

This report summarizes the outcomes of a meeting on cystic echinococcosis (CE) in animals and humans in Chile held in Santiago, Chile, between the 21st and 22nd of January 2016. The meeting participants included representatives of the Departamento de Zoonosis, Ministerio de Salud (Zoonotic Diseases Department, Ministry of Health), representatives of the Secretarias Regionales del Ministerio de Salud (Regional Department of Health, Ministry of Health), Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo Agropecuario (National Institute for the Development of Agriculture and Livestock, INDAP), Instituto de Salud Pública (National Institute for Public Health, ISP) and the Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (Animal Health Department, SAG), academics from various universities, veterinarians and physicians. Current and future CE control activities were discussed. It was noted that the EG95 vaccine was being implemented for the first time in pilot control programmes, with the vaccine scheduled during 2016 in two different regions in the South of Chile. In relation to use of the vaccine, the need was highlighted for acquiring good quality data, based on CE findings at slaughterhouse, previous to initiation of vaccination so as to enable correct assessment of the efficacy of the vaccine in the following years. The current world's-best-practice concerning the use of ultrasound as a diagnostic tool for the screening population in highly endemic remote and poor areas was also discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 9 26%

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 21 October 2016.
All research outputs
#9,759,394
of 15,918,484 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,254
of 4,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,142
of 270,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,918,484 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,268 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 270,632 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them