↓ Skip to main content

A European network for food-borne parasites (Euro-FBP): meeting report on ‘Analytical methods for food-borne parasites in human and veterinary diagnostics and in food matrices’

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
A European network for food-borne parasites (Euro-FBP): meeting report on ‘Analytical methods for food-borne parasites in human and veterinary diagnostics and in food matrices’
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13071-017-2506-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Klotz, Barbara Šoba, Miha Skvarč, Sarah Gabriël, Lucy J. Robertson

Abstract

Food-borne parasites (FBPs) are a neglected topic in food safety, partly due to a lack of awareness of their importance for public health, especially as symptoms tend not to develop immediately after exposure. In addition, methodological difficulties with both diagnosis in infected patients and detection in food matrices result in under-detection and therefore the potential for underestimation of their burden on our societies. This, in consequence, leads to lower prioritization for basic research, e.g. for development new and more advanced detection methods for different food matrices and diagnostic samples, and thus a vicious circle of neglect and lack of progress is propagated. The COST Action FA1408, A European Network for Foodborne Parasites (Euro-FBP) aims to combat the impact of FBP on public health by facilitating the multidisciplinary cooperation and partnership between groups of researchers and between researchers and stakeholders. The COST Action TD1302, the European Network for cysticercosis/taeniosis, CYSTINET, has a specific focus on Taenia solium and T. saginata, two neglected FBPs, and aims to advance knowledge and understanding of these zoonotic disease complexes via collaborations in a multidisciplinary scientific network. This report summarizes the results of a meeting within the Euro-FBP consortium entitled 'Analytical methods for food-borne parasites in human and veterinary diagnostics and in food matrices' and of the joined Euro-FBP and CYSTINET meeting.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 12 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Engineering 3 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 16 46%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 April 2018.
All research outputs
#11,406,552
of 12,829,119 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,891
of 3,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#326,900
of 387,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#538
of 580 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,829,119 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,345 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 387,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 580 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.