↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the first three waves of avian influenza A(H7N9) virus circulation in the mainland of the People’s Republic of China

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Comparison of the first three waves of avian influenza A(H7N9) virus circulation in the mainland of the People’s Republic of China
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-2049-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nijuan Xiang, A. Danielle Iuliano, Yanping Zhang, Ruiqi Ren, Xingyi Geng, Bili Ye, Wenxiao Tu, Ch ao Li, Yong Lv, Ming Yang, Jian Zhao, Yali Wang, Fuqiang Yang, Lei Zhou, Bo Liu, Yuelong Shu, Daxin Ni, Zijian Feng, Qun Li

Abstract

H7N9 human cases were first detected in mainland China in March 2013. Circulation of this virus has continued each year shifting to typical winter months. We compared the clinical and epidemiologic characteristics for the first three waves of virus circulation. The first wave was defined as reported cases with onset dates between March 31-September 30, 2013, the second wave was defined as October 1, 2013-September 30, 2014 and the third wave was defined as October 1, 2014-September 30, 2015. We used simple descriptive statistics to compare characteristics of the three distinct waves of virus circulation. In mainland China, 134 cases, 306 cases and 219 cases were detected and reported in first three waves, respectively. The median age of cases was statistically significantly older in the first wave (61 years vs. 56 years, 56 years, p < 0.001) compared to the following two waves. Most reported cases were among men in all three waves. There was no statistically significant difference between case fatality proportions (33, 42 and 45%, respectively, p = 0.08). There were no significant statistical differences for time from illness onset to first seeking healthcare, hospitalization, lab confirmation, initiation antiviral treatment and death between the three waves. A similar percentage of cases in all waves reported exposure to poultry or live poultry markets (87%, 88%, 90%, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of severe disease between the each of the first three waves of virus circulation. Twenty-one clusters were reported during these three waves (4, 11 and 6 clusters, respectively), of which, 14 were considered to be possible human-to-human transmission. Though our case investigation for the first three waves found few differences between the epidemiologic and clinical characteristics, there is continued international concern about the pandemic potential of this virus. Since the virus continues to circulate, causes more severe disease, has the ability to mutate and become transmissible from human-to-human, and there is limited natural protection from infection in communities, it is critical that surveillance systems in China and elsewhere are alert to the influenza H7N9 virus.

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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 23%
Student > Bachelor 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Mathematics 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 10 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 October 2020.
All research outputs
#15,516,722
of 24,586,986 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,153
of 8,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,878
of 425,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#118
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,586,986 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 425,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 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.