↓ Skip to main content

Malaria’s contribution to World War One – the unexpected adversary

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Malaria’s contribution to World War One – the unexpected adversary
Published in
Malaria Journal, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-13-497
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernard J Brabin

Abstract

Malaria in the First World War was an unexpected adversary. In 1914, the scientific community had access to new knowledge on transmission of malaria parasites and their control, but the military were unprepared, and underestimated the nature, magnitude and dispersion of this enemy. In summarizing available information for allied and axis military forces, this review contextualizes the challenge posed by malaria, because although data exist across historical, medical and military documents, descriptions are fragmented, often addressing context specific issues. Military malaria surveillance statistics have, therefore, been summarized for all theatres of the War, where available. These indicated that at least 1.5 million solders were infected, with case fatality ranging from 0.2 -5.0%. As more countries became engaged in the War, the problem grew in size, leading to major epidemics in Macedonia, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Italy. Trans-continental passages of parasites and human reservoirs of infection created ideal circumstances for parasite evolution. Details of these epidemics are reviewed, including major epidemics in England and Italy, which developed following home troop evacuations, and disruption of malaria control activities in Italy. Elsewhere, in sub-Saharan Africa many casualties resulted from high malaria exposure combined with minimal control efforts for soldiers considered semi-immune. Prevention activities eventually started but were initially poorly organized and dependent on local enthusiasm and initiative. Nets had to be designed for field use and were fundamental for personal protection. Multiple prevention approaches adopted in different settings and their relative utility are described. Clinical treatment primarily depended on quinine, although efficacy was poor as relapsing Plasmodium vivax and recrudescent Plasmodium falciparum infections were not distinguished and managed appropriately. Reasons for this are discussed and the clinical trial data summarized, as are controversies that arose from attempts at quinine prophylaxis (quininization). In essence, the First World War was a vast experiment in political, demographic, and medical practice which exposed large gaps in knowledge of tropical medicine and unfortunately, of malaria. Research efforts eventually commenced late in the War to address important clinical questions which established a platform for more effective strategies, but in 1918 this relentless foe had outwitted and weakened both allied and axis powers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters 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 129 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 127 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Other 10 8%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 5%
Chemistry 6 5%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 30 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 07 June 2022.
All research outputs
#625,252
of 21,956,218 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#69
of 5,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,253
of 347,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#4
of 396 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,956,218 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 347,765 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 396 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.