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 |
Predicting the impact of insecticide-treated bed nets on malaria transmission: the devil is in the detail
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, November 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2875-8-256 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Weidong Gu, Robert J Novak |
| Abstract |
Insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs), including long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs), play a primary role in global campaigns to roll back malaria in tropical Africa. Effectiveness of treated nets depends on direct impacts on individual mosquitoes including killing and excite-repellency, which vary considerably among vector species due to variations in host-seeking behaviours. While monitoring and evaluation programmes of ITNs have focuses on morbidity and all-cause mortality in humans, local entomological context receives little attention. Without knowing the dynamics of local vector species and their responses to treated nets, it is difficult to predict clinical outcomes when ITN applications are scaled up across African continent. Sound model frameworks incorporating intricate interactions between mosquitoes and treated nets are needed to develop the predictive capacity for scale-up applications of ITNs. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Norway | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Burkina Faso | 1 | <1% |
| Malawi | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 142 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 17% |
| Researcher | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 January 2014.
All research outputs
#3,530,428
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#818
of 5,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,065
of 79,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#6
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,547 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 well, scoring higher than 85% 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 79,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.