↓ Skip to main content

The conclusion of a comparative efficacy study of fluralaner and sarolaner against the tick Amblyomma americanum on dogs is based on results obtained at study times that are outside the fluralaner…

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, March 2017
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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
The conclusion of a comparative efficacy study of fluralaner and sarolaner against the tick Amblyomma americanum on dogs is based on results obtained at study times that are outside the fluralaner label recommendations
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13071-017-2100-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rob Armstrong

Abstract

The only fluralaner-related conclusion presented in a study comparing the efficacy of fluralaner and sarolaner for control of the tick Amblyomma americanum on dogs is based on study times that are outside the label administration recommendations. Label recommendations for fluralaner treatment of A. americanum on dogs in the USA require re-administration at 56 days. This 56 day re-administration was not conducted in the study; therefore, all assessed time points following 56 days post-treatment in the study present comparisons that are not consistent with fluralaner administration recommendations. The only comparative time point assessed prior to 56 days showing a difference between treatments was at 42 days post-administration, a time point when methodological problems were identified by the investigators. Therefore, the only comparative study conclusion that a difference was shown between fluralaner and sarolaner beyond 6 weeks (42 days) after treatment is not based on recommended product use. Furthermore, if the study does not show that there is a difference between the treatments at times when the products are used as recommended, then there also can be no comparative discussion of the risk of tick-borne pathogen transmission risk between treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Unknown 7 50%
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 29 March 2017.
All research outputs
#14,928,316
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#3,099
of 5,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,627
of 309,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#98
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 309,205 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.