↓ Skip to main content

Risk factors associated with negative in-vivodiagnostic results in bovine tuberculosis-infected cattle in Spain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, January 2014
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

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Risk factors associated with negative in-vivodiagnostic results in bovine tuberculosis-infected cattle in Spain
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1746-6148-10-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julio Álvarez, Andrés Perez, Sergio Marqués, Javier Bezos, Anna Grau, Maria Luisa de la Cruz, Beatriz Romero, Jose Luis Saez, Maria del Rosario Esquivel, Maria del Carmen Martínez, Olga Mínguez, Lucía de Juan, Lucas Domínguez

Abstract

Despite great effort and investment incurred over decades to control bovine tuberculosis (bTB), it is still one of the most important zoonotic diseases in many areas of the world. Test-and-slaughter strategies, the basis of most bTB eradication programs carried out worldwide, have demonstrated its usefulness in the control of the disease. However, in certain countries, eradication has not been achieved due in part to limitations of currently available diagnostic tests. In this study, results of in-vivo and post-mortem diagnostic tests performed on 3,614 animals from 152 bTB-infected cattle herds (beef, dairy, and bullfighting) detected in 2007-2010 in the region of Castilla y León, Spain, were analyzed to identify factors associated with positive bacteriological results in cattle that were non-reactors to the single intradermal tuberculin test, to the interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) assay, or to both tests applied in parallel (Test negative/Culture + animals, T-/C+). The association of individual factors (age, productive type, and number of herd-tests performed since the disclosure of the outbreak) with the bacteriology outcome (positive/negative) was analyzed using a mixed multivariate logistic regression model.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 67 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 20%
Researcher 11 16%
Other 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 17 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 15 22%
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 28 January 2014.
All research outputs
#15,557,505
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#1,289
of 3,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,157
of 312,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#30
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 3,087 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 312,034 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 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.