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 |
Comparison of two adult mosquito sampling methods with human landing catches in south-central Ethiopia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12936-016-1668-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oljira Kenea, Meshesha Balkew, Habte Tekie, Teshome Gebre-Michael, Wakgari Deressa, Eskindir Loha, Bernt Lindtjørn, Hans J. Overgaard |
| Abstract |
The human landing catch (HLC) is the standard reference method for measuring human exposure to mosquito bites. However, HLC is labour-intensive, exposes collectors to infectious mosquito bites and is subjected to collector bias. These necessitate local calibration and application of alternative methods. This study was undertaken to determine the relative sampling efficiency (RSE) of light traps with or without yeast-produced carbon dioxide bait vs. HLC in south-central Ethiopia. The experiment was conducted for 39 nights in a 3 × 3 Latin square randomized design with Anopheles arabiensis as the target species in the period between July and November 2014 in Edo Kontola village, south-central Ethiopia. Center for Disease Control and Prevention light trap catches (LTC) and yeast-generated carbon dioxide-baited light trap catches (CB-LTC) were each evaluated against HLC. The total nightly mosquito catches for each Anopheles species in either method was compared with HLC by Pearson correlation and simple linear regression analysis on log-transformed [log10(x + 1)] values. To test if the RSE of each alternative method was affected by mosquito density, the ratio of the number of mosquitoes in each method to the number of mosquitoes in HLC was plotted against the average mosquito abundance. Overall, 7606 Anopheles females were collected by the three sampling methods. Among these 5228 (68.7%) were Anopheles ziemanni, 1153 (15.2%) An. arabiensis, 883 (11.6%) Anopheles funestus s.l., and 342 (4.5%) Anopheles pharoensis. HLC yielded 3392 (44.6%), CB-LTC 2150 (28.3%), and LTC 2064 (27.1%) Anopheles females. The RSEs of LTC and HLC for An. arabiensis were significantly correlated (p < 0.001) and density independent (p = 0.65). However, for outdoor collection of the same species, RSEs of LTC and CB-LTC were density dependent (p < 0.001). It was estimated that on average, indoor LTC and CB-LTC each caught 0.35 and 0.44 times that of indoor HLC for An. arabiensis respectively. Results showed that HLC was the most efficient method for sampling An. arabiensis. LTC can be used for large-scale indoor An. arabiensis surveillance and monitoring when it is difficult to use HLC. CB-LTC does not substantially improve sampling of this major vector compared to LTC in this setting. Trial registration PACTR201411000882128 (retrospectively registered 8 September, 2014). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 153 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 16% |
| Researcher | 20 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 13% |
| Unknown | 41 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 32 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 29 | 19% |
| Unknown | 48 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 18 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,227,760
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#202
of 5,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,143
of 421,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#6
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,585 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 421,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.