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 |
Ready to Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTF) improves undernutrition among ART-treated, HIV-positive children in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2891-11-60 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bruno F Sunguya, Krishna C Poudel, Linda B Mlunde, Keiko Otsuka, Junko Yasuoka, David P Urassa, Namala P Mkopi, Masamine Jimba |
| Abstract |
HIV/AIDS is associated with an increased burden of undernutrition among children even under antiretroviral therapy (ART). To treat undernutrition, WHO endorsed the use of Ready to Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTF) that can reduce case fatality and undernutrition among ART-naïve HIV-positive children. However, its effects are not studied among ART-treated, HIV-positive children. Therefore, we examined the association between RUTF use with underweight, wasting, and stunting statuses among ART-treated HIV-positive children in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Rwanda | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 149 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 40 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 10% |
| Researcher | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 9% |
| Other | 21 | 14% |
| Unknown | 28 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 13% |
| Unknown | 32 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 February 2013.
All research outputs
#15,004,180
of 25,286,324 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,086
of 1,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,435
of 178,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#31
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,286,324 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.5. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 178,255 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.