↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mosquito larval source management for controlling malaria

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 tweeters
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
532 Mendeley
Title
Mosquito larval source management for controlling malaria
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008923.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucy S Tusting, Julie Thwing, David Sinclair, Ulrike Fillinger, John Gimnig, Kimberly E Bonner, Christian Bottomley, Steven W Lindsay

Abstract

Malaria is an important cause of illness and death in people living in many parts of the world, especially sub-Saharan Africa. Long-lasting insecticide treated bed nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) reduce malaria transmission by targeting the adult mosquito vector and are key components of malaria control programmes. However, mosquito numbers may also be reduced by larval source management (LSM), which targets mosquito larvae as they mature in aquatic habitats. This is conducted by permanently or temporarily reducing the availability of larval habitats (habitat modification and habitat manipulation), or by adding substances to standing water that either kill or inhibit the development of larvae (larviciding).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 532 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Unknown 518 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 90 17%
Researcher 84 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 77 14%
Student > Bachelor 59 11%
Student > Postgraduate 34 6%
Other 80 15%
Unknown 108 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 103 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 41 8%
Environmental Science 36 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 6%
Other 83 16%
Unknown 128 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 81. 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 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#429,230
of 22,250,934 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#788
of 12,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,351
of 178,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,250,934 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,220 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 178,718 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 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 94% of its contemporaries.