↓ Skip to main content

Glanders: an overview of infection in humans

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
3 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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
Glanders: an overview of infection in humans
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-8-131
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristopher E Van Zandt, Marek T Greer, H Carl Gelhaus

Abstract

Glanders is a highly contagious and often fatal zoonotic disease, primarily of solipds. In the developed world, glanders has been eradicated. However, prior use of B. mallei as a biological weapon and its high mortality in inhalation animal studies has affirmed B. mallei as a biodefense concern. This threat requires the development of new glanders medical countermeasures (MCMs), as there is a lack of an effective vaccine and lengthy courses of multiple antibiotics needed to eradicate B. mallei. Here, we present a literature review of human glanders in which we discuss the clinical epidemiology and risk factors, potential routes of exposure, symptoms, the incubation period, and specific diagnostics. This review focuses on pulmonary glanders, as this is the most likely outcome of a biological weapons attack. Additionally, we outline current treatment regimens and propose a clinical definition of human pulmonary glanders infection.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 142 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Other 8 6%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 39 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 20%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 21 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 6%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 42 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 03 March 2022.
All research outputs
#3,141,202
of 23,243,271 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#433
of 2,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,236
of 197,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#4
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,243,271 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 197,950 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.