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 |
The recovery of added nematode eggs from horse and sheep faeces by three methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Veterinary Research, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12917-017-1326-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio Bosco, Maria Paola Maurelli, Davide Ianniello, Maria Elena Morgoglione, Alessandra Amadesi, Gerald C. Coles, Giuseppe Cringoli, Laura Rinaldi |
| Abstract |
Nematode infections in horses are widespread across the world. Increasing levels of anthelmintic resistance, reported worldwide in equine parasites, have led to the creation of programs for the control of nematodes based on faecal egg counts (FEC). To improve nematode egg counting in equine faecal samples and establish whether the matrix of equine faeces or the eggs affect the counts, the analytical sensitivity, accuracy and precision of Mini-FLOTAC (combined with Fill-FLOTAC), McMaster and Cornell-Wisconsin techniques were compared. Known numbers of eggs extracted from equine or ovine faeces were added to egg free ovine and equine faeces to give counts of 10, 50, 200 and 500 eggs per gram (EPG) of faeces. The Cornell-Wisconsin significantly underestimated egg counts and McMaster showed a low analytical sensitivity, revealing 100% of sensitivity only for concentrations greater than 200 EPG. EPG values detected by Mini-FLOTAC did not differ significantly from expected counts at any level of egg density. Mini-FLOTAC combined to Fill-FLOTAC which provides an accurate method of weighing without need for a balance and filtering out debris, could be used for FEC on the farm as well as in the laboratory. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 6 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Energy | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 42% |
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 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,088,972
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#1,022
of 3,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,720
of 441,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#35
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,064 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 441,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 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 55% of its contemporaries.