↓ Skip to main content

Composite endpoints for malaria case-management: not simplifying the picture?

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Composite endpoints for malaria case-management: not simplifying the picture?
Published in
Malaria Journal, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-13-494
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew E Cairns, Baptiste Leurent, Paul J Milligan

Abstract

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for infection with Plasmodium spp. offer two main potential advantages related to malaria treatment: 1) ensuring that individuals with malaria are promptly treated with an effective artemisinin-based combination therapy, and 2) ensuring that individuals without malaria do not receive an anti-malarial they do not need (and instead receive a more appropriate treatment). Some studies of the impact of RDTs on malaria case management have combined these two different successes into a binary outcome describing 'correct management'. However combining correct management of positives and negatives into a single summary measure can be misleading. The problems, which are analogous to those encountered in the evaluation of diagnostic tests, can largely be avoided if data for patients with and without malaria are presented and analysed separately. Where a combined metric is necessary, then one of the established approaches to summarise the performance of diagnostic tests could be considered, although these are not without their limitations. Two graphical approaches to help understand case management performance are illustrated.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 13%
Cameroon 1 7%
Unknown 12 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 20%
Other 3 20%
Lecturer 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 33%
Social Sciences 3 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Environmental Science 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,276,331
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,765
of 5,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,683
of 354,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#30
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 354,732 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 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 69% of its contemporaries.