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 |
Accuracy of epidemiological inferences based on publicly available information: retrospective comparative analysis of line lists of human cases infected with influenza A(H7N9) in China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-12-88 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric HY Lau, Jiandong Zheng, Tim K Tsang, Qiaohong Liao, Bryan Lewis, John S Brownstein, Sharon Sanders, Jessica Y Wong, Sumiko R Mekaru, Caitlin Rivers, Peng Wu, Hui Jiang, Yu Li, Jianxing Yu, Qian Zhang, Zhaorui Chang, Fengfeng Liu, Zhibin Peng, Gabriel M Leung, Luzhao Feng, Benjamin J Cowling, Hongjie Yu |
| Abstract |
Appropriate public health responses to infectious disease threats should be based on best-available evidence, which requires timely reliable data for appropriate analysis. During the early stages of epidemics, analysis of 'line lists' with detailed information on laboratory-confirmed cases can provide important insights into the epidemiology of a specific disease. The objective of the present study was to investigate the extent to which reliable epidemiologic inferences could be made from publicly-available epidemiologic data of human infection with influenza A(H7N9) virus. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 45% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 27% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 36% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 55 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 25% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 2021.
All research outputs
#1,953,708
of 24,942,536 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,350
of 3,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,116
of 232,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#26
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,942,536 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 232,161 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.