↓ Skip to main content

Models and analyses to understand threats to polio eradication

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Models and analyses to understand threats to polio eradication
Published in
BMC Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0991-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

James S. Koopman

Abstract

To achieve complete polio eradication, the live oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) currently used must be phased out after the end of wild poliovirus transmission. However, poorly understood threats may arise when OPV use is stopped. To counter these threats, better models than those currently available are needed. Two articles recently published in BMC Medicine address these issues. Mercer et al. (BMC Med 15:180, 2017) developed a statistical model analysis of polio case data and characteristics of cases occurring in several districts in Pakistan to inform resource allocation decisions. Nevertheless, despite having the potential to accelerate the elimination of polio cases, their analyses are unlikely to advance our understanding OPV cessation threats. McCarthy et al. (BMC Med 15:175, 2017) explored one such threat, namely the emergence and transmission of serotype 2 circulating vaccine derived poliovirus (cVDPV2) after OPV2 cessation, and found that the risk of persistent spread of cVDPV2 to new areas increases rapidly 1-5 years after OPV2 cessation. Thus, recently developed models and analysis methods have the potential to guide the required steps to surpass these threats. 'Big data' scientists could help with this; however, datasets covering all eradication efforts should be made readily available.Please see related articles: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0937-y and https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0941-2 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 27%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 14 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 24%
Mathematics 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 14 38%
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 04 October 2018.
All research outputs
#13,576,042
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,845
of 3,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,709
of 440,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#41
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 440,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.