↓ Skip to main content

Fit for purpose: do we have the right tools to sustain NTD elimination?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Proceedings, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 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
Fit for purpose: do we have the right tools to sustain NTD elimination?
Published in
BMC Proceedings, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/1753-6561-9-s10-s5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa J Reimer, Emily R Adams, Mark JI Paine, Hilary Ranson, Marlize Coleman, Edward K Thomsen, Eleanor E MacPherson, T Deirdre Hollingsworth, Louise A Kelly-Hope, Moses J Bockarie, Louise Ford, Robert A Harrison, J Russell Stothard, Mark J Taylor, Nicholas Hamon, Stephen J Torr

Abstract

Priorities for NTD control programmes will shift over the next 10-20 years as the elimination phase reaches the 'end game' for some NTDs, and the recognition that the control of other NTDs is much more problematic. The current goal of scaling up programmes based on preventive chemotherapy (PCT) will alter to sustaining NTD prevention, through sensitive surveillance and rapid response to resurgence. A new suite of tools and approaches will be required for both PCT and Intensive Disease Management (IDM) diseases in this timeframe to enable disease endemic countries to: 1. Sensitively and sustainably survey NTD transmission and prevalence in order to identify and respond quickly to resurgence. 2. Set relevant control targets based not only on epidemiological indicators but also entomological and ecological metrics and use decision support technology to help meet those targets. 3. Implement verified and cost-effective tools to prevent transmission throughout the elimination phase. Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM) and partners propose to evaluate and implement existing tools from other disease systems as well as new tools in the pipeline in order to support endemic country ownership in NTD decision-making during the elimination phase and beyond.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Master 5 14%
Professor 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 6 16%
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 03 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,245,321
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Proceedings
#188
of 375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,422
of 388,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Proceedings
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 375 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 388,244 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 16 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.